
g%grVj<i/'-^S ', 





,,- ^^<if - 




Qass 
Book_ 



r^^c 



..^^^- 



■ / 






SPEECH 

OP 

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 

OF MASSACHUSETTS, UPON 
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, MEN AND WOMEN, TO PETITION; 

ON THE 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF DEBATE 

IN THE 
HOUSE OF REPRESEKTATITES 0? THE CNITED STATES; 
0?r THE 1 

RESOLUTIONS OF SEVEN STATE LEGISLATURES, 

AND THE 

PETITIONS OF MORE THAN ONE HUS^DRED THOUSAND ?ETITI0:<ER9 

RELATING TO THE 

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS TO THIS UNION. 



Delivpred in (he House of Representatives of the United States, in fros^inents of the iinrn- 
ing hour, from the 16th of June to the 7th of July, 1S38, inclu-ive. 



^ WASHINGTON: 



PRINTED BY GALES AND SEATON. 

1838. 



■A ZO'^ 



Xn Exchange* 



HIOV 2 4 191ft 



PREFACE. 



For the proper understanding of the following series of addresses to 
Vhe House of Representatives of the United States, delivered in frag- 
ments of the morning hour from the 16th of June to the 7th of July, 
1838, it is necessary to advert to certain previous proceedings of the 
House in relation to the annexation of Texas to this Union, and to some 
other subjects, having, or supposed to have, a close and inseparable 
connexion therewith. 

On the 26th of May, 1836, the House, under the screw of the previ- 
ous question, had adopted a resolution reported by a select committee, 
of which Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina, was the chairman: 

' ' That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any 
way or to any extent whatever to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, 
shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no fur- 
ther action whatever shall be had thereon." 

Petitions for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia and the Territories, for the prohibition of the internal 
traffic in slaves, and against the admission into the Union of any new 
slave State, to the number of about twenty thousand signers, had, at an 
early period of the session, been referred to the committee which 
reported this and two other congenial resolutions. The two others they 
had been instructed to report. Their motive for reporting the third was 
expressed by themselves to bo, that it was " extreviely important and 
desirable that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, 
for the purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public mind." 

This tranquillizing resolution was adopted at so late a period of the 
session, that, excepting the convulsive movement by which it was car- 
ried through the House, it had little effect, and it expired with the 
session ; but so conspicuous were its sedative properties, that at the 
ensuing session (that of 1836-'37) it multiplied fivefold the anti-slavery 
petitions. After one or two abortive attempts to elicit from the House 
a refusal to receive such petitions, they were, on the 19th of January, 
1837, all disposed of by repeating the gag-resolution of the preceding 
session. 

The tranquillizing efiect of this was not only to swell the flood of anti- 
slavery petitions, but to open the source of a new and abundant stream 



of remonstrances against the resolution itselC; to which remonstrances 
were added, before the close of the session, resolutions severely repro- 
bating; it, adopted by ihe Legislature of Massachusetts. 

In the mean time the conspiracy for the dismemberment of Mexico, 
the reinstitution of slavery in the dismembered portion of that Republic, 
and the acquisition, by purchase or by conquest, of the territory, to 
sustain, spread, and perpetuate, the moral and religious blessing of 
slavery in this Union, was in the full tide of successful experiment. The 
battle of San Jacinto had been nearly cotemporaneous with the gag-reso- 
lution of 26th May, 1836. It had prostrated the power of Mexico in Tex- 
as, and surrendered the President of the Mexican Confederacy a captive 
to tlie chief of the Texian insurrection. The grasping spirit of slave- 
restoring rapacity, far from being discouraged by the repugnance and 
disgust with which the Mexicans of all parties had repelled every prop- 
osition for the purchase of Texas, had enlarged the dimensions of the 
coveted territory, till it comprehended not only the whole course of the 
Rio del Norte, including Santa Fe, but had taken a sweep of five 
degrees of latitude across the continent, to include the convenient port 
of San Francisco, on the Pacific ocean.* The constitution of the 
Republic of Texas had consecrated the blessing of eternal slavekv, 
by interdicting even to their Legislature the power of emancipation. 
Mexico was amused with a new convention for surveying and marking 
the boundary line, and with promises of neutrality between her and 
Texas. General Gaines was authorized to invade the territory of Mex- 
ico. An Envoy Extraordinary was sent from Mexico in solemn mission 
to Washington, to complain of these proceedings ; in return for which, 
after refusing all satisfaction for this act of war, a thundering message 
was on the 6th of February, 1837, sent by the President of the United 
States to Congress, trumping up a bundle of individual claims and petty 
vexations, well or ill founded, and most of them traceable to the popular 
resentment and hatred excited by this double-dealing policy on our own 
part, and recommending a last solemn mission to Mexico to demand 
satisfaction for these wrongs, and then an authority to the Executive to 
make reprisals. 

Simultaneous with this movement was another, by which, against the 
grave and cautious warnings of prudence, and justice, and neutrality, by 
repeated Executive messages, the recognition of the independence o! 
Texas was, on the last day of the session and of the Jackson Adminis- 
tration, smuggled through both Houses of Congress, and approved b) 
the President, in the form of an appropriation for a diplomatic func- 

• See letter from Mr. Forsyth to Anthony Butler, of 6th August, 1835. 



tionary, «l)o on tliat same midnight hour was. nominated by the Presi- 
dent and confirmed hr the Senate of the United States. 

This measure, thus precipitated for the purpose of hastening and 
facilitating the annexation of Texas to this Union, was, in the wise and 
lust decrees of Providence, destined to raise, perhaps, the most eft'ective 
obstacles to its consummation. Just before the warlike message of the 
7th of February, the captive Mexican President had been released by 
his Texian conqueror, and sent to Washington, to negotiate in person 
the cession by Mexico of Texas to the United States of the North. 
This negotiation, which commenced by correspondence in writing, appa- 
rently failed only because the Mexican Congress had formally decreed 
and notified a total suspension of his official powers during his captivity. 
The acquisition of Texas by purchase from Mexico having thus become 
desperate, the next step towards obtaining it was by acknowledging the 
independence of Texas, and at the same time fretting the people of this 
Union into a war with Mexico, making with Texas a common cause 
against her, and thus extorting by conquest what it had been found 
impracticable to obtain by negotiation. And when once engaged with 
Texas against Mexico, the annexation of the new slave-ridden Republic 
to this Union was foreseen as bearing upon us with a pressure which 
nothing could resist. 

But it was essential to the success of this system of policy, that it 
should continue to be pursued by indirect means and with a double; face. 
Immediately after the formal recognition of Texas as an independent 
Stale, the Legislature of that Republic, instructed by the People, directed 
their President (Houston) to make application to the Government of the 
United States for admission to this Union. This application was accord- 
ingly made, by a Minister Plenipotentiary, Mr. Memucan Hunt, pre- 
cisely at the time ol" the meeting of Congress at their special session in 
September, 1837. The proposal had been made by a note from Mr. 
Hunt dated the 4tli of August, and declined by the answer of the Secre- 
tary of State, Mr. Forsyth, on the 25th of that month, only one week 
bf-fore the meeting of Congress. No notice whatever of this transaction 
was taken by President Van Buren in his message to Congress of the 
1st of September ; nor would the nation have known thai such a nego- 
tiation existed, but for a call by the House of Representatives, on the 
13th of September, upon the President, for information whether a prop- 
osition had been made, on the part of the Republic of Texas, for annex- 
ation ; and, if so, what answer had been returned thereto. 

By another call, on the same I3ih of September, the House had 
required of the President, as far as might be consistent with the public 
interest, an exhibition of the correspondence with the Mexican Govern- 



inent concerning tlie boundary between the United States and Mexico, 
and concerning any proposition for a cession of territory from tiie Mex- 
ican Confederation to the United States. In answer to this call, a 
scanty communication was returned of correspondence relating to the 
boundary, from which all the despatches of our diplomatic officers 
accredited to the Mexican Government were withheld, on the avowed 
ground that they came within the exception conceded in the call. From 
the report of the Secretary of State (Mr. F'orsyth) to the President, 
accompanying the documents communicated in answer to this call, it 
appeared, further, that of the only direct and formal argumentative pro- 
posal ever addressed to the Mexican Government, urging a change of 
boundary from the Sabine, and contained in a note from Mr. Butler to 
the Mexican Secretary of State, of 15th July, 1832, no copy was ever 
transmitted by him to the Department of State, and that there is no 
draught or record of it in the archives of the legation of the United 
States at Mexico. 

The answer of the Secretary of State to the proposal of Mr. Memucan 
Hunt of the annexation of Texas to the Uniied States, though formally 
negative, was in nowise discouraging to the new Republic. There was 
a very distinct avowal, that so long as Texas should remain at war, 
while the United States should be at peace with her adversary, they 
could not listen to the proposition for annexation. A profound rever- 
ence for their treaty obligations to Mexico was professed, contrasting 
rather humorously with the late President's call for powers of contingent 
reprisals six months before, and with the militant message of President 
Van Buren three months later. A constitutional scruple as to the power 
of Congress to annex the People of a foreign independent State to the 
Union was "just hinted," but by no means in terms so strong as Mr, 
Jeflerson had used to disclaim the power of Congress to merge the Peo- 
ple of Louisiana into the mass of the People of the United States, under 
the charter of national independence. It would, indeed, have been 
impossible to express a refusal in terms better suited to be construed into 
assent, than was exemplified in the answer of Mr. Forsyth to Mr, Hunt. 

But the extraordinary obliquity of the proceedings of the federal 
Executive, in their relations with Mexico and Texas, had at length 
roused the anxious attention of the free People of the Union. It was 
generally known, though in no authentic form, that President Jackson 
had, from the commencement of his administration, been constantly 
stimulated by slave-dealers, land-jobbers, and speculators, to the acquisi- 
tion of Texas, till he had been deluded into the belief that it would be 
the crowning glory of his administration. No communication of this 
intention was ever made by him to Congress ; on the contrary, a systen^ 



of mystery and of secresy had been constantly adhered to by him on the 
subject, to such an extent that a resolution, offered on the 17th of May, 
1836, and repeated on the 24th of the same month, in the House of 
Representatives of the United States, calling for information concerning 
any overture by him to the Mexican Government for the acquisition of 
any portion of their territory, was twice evaded by the influence and 
votes of his most devoted partisans. The interminable negotiations, 
incessantly renewed and never concluded, with Mexico, for surveying 
and drawing the line of boundary stipulated by the treaty of 1819, and 
recognised time after time by both parties ; the sympathetic and corre- 
sponding movements of theTexian insurrection and of the North Amer- 
ican Executive Administration ; the importunate eagerness of the slave 
representation, combined with the Texian land-jobbing interest, in Con- 
gress, to precipitate the recognition of Texas ; and perhaps more than 
all, the inadvertent disclosure of the authority to General Gaines to 
invade the Mexican territory — an outrage no less upon the war-declaring 
power, reserved by the constitution to Congress, than upon the laws of 
peace with a neighboring nation — had excited in the States consisting 
only of freemen a very extensive alarm. At the special session of 
Congress, besides the anti-slavery petitions, far more numerous than 
they had ever been before, there were presented multitudes specially 
remonstrating against the annexation of Texas. They were all easily 
disposed of at that session, by a resolution of the House discarding from 
consideration all subjects other than those specially recommended by 
the message of the President. All petitions and memorials upon every 
other subject were therefore laid, of course, upon the table, to be taken 
up in order at the regular session. 

At that session the anti-slavery petitioners and remonstrants were 
increased to a number exceeding two hundred thousand. 

On the 20th of December, 1837, Mr. Slade, of Vermont, moved that 
a petition of upwards of five hundred men and women, citizens of that 
State, which had been presented by him, should be referred to a select 
committee, with instruction to report a bill providing for the abolition of 
slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 

While Mr. Slade was supporting this motion, in the regular course of 
debate, a question of order was made by a member of the slave repre- 
sentation from South Carolina; and, by an arbitrary decision of the 
Speaker, Mr. Slade was pronounced out of order. Most of the mem- 
bers of the slave representation left their seats and the House ; and, at 
the moment of the adjournment, a verbal notice was given by another 
member from South Carolina, that a meeting was then assembled in one 



8 

of the cornmhlee-rooms of the Capitol, at which the members from ilit 
slavtholding States were requested to attend. 

This meeting, in which no meniber from a non-sIaveho!ding State 
was admitted to participate, but in which tlie members of the slave 
representation in the Senate took part in common with those of the 
House, prepared and adopted a gag-resolution, in substance the same 
with that of the two preceding annual sessions ; and they appointed 
Mr. Patton, a member of the House from Virginia, to present it to the 
House, and at the same time to move tiie previous question upon its 
adoption. It was accordingly presented to the Hoase the next day, 
admitted by a suspension of the rules, debarred fron) all deliberation by 
the previous question, and carried by yeas and nays, 122 to 74 ; of 
which majority 51 members were from rjon-slaveholding States, who 
received and voted for this resolution, as dictated by the Southern con- 
venticle cf Senators and Representatives, without having been permitted 
to share in the deliberations of the meeting by which it had been pre- 
scribed. 

From thenceforward, all petitions, memorials, and papers, relating to 
the abolition of s^lavery or the slave trade, were laid on the table, withouts 
being debated, printed, read, or referred ; and under that order abouJ 
Jwo hundred thousand petitioners were refused a hearing by the House. 

This resolution was understood not to include the petitions, remon- 
strances, and memorials, against the annexation of Texas to the Union j 
but as most of these did touch the abolition of slavery, and the buying, 
selling, and transferring of slaves, whenever any such paper was pre- 
sented, some slave Representative moved it should be laid on the table.^ 
which motion the, standing majority of the House always sustained; and 
thus summarily were the prayers of about one hundred thousand nyore 
petitioners disposed of. 

Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, remon- 
strating against the annexation of Texas, were presented on the 29th of 
December, and laid on the table. They were not printed on the Jour- 
nal of the House, as by a practice without exceptiorr till then had always 
been done. 

On tWe same day, a petition from inhabitants of Newport, in the State 
of New Hampshire, was presented, praying Congress to recognise the 
independence of Hayti. It was referred to the Committee on Foreigt* 
Affairs, who never reported upon it at all. 

The resolutions from the Legislature of the State cf Vermont were 
presented on the 14tb of February. They not only protested against 
the annexation of Texas to the Union, but declared that Congress have 
lull power to abolish slavery and the slave trade ia the District of 



9 

Columbia and the Territories, and to prohibit tlie internal traffic in 
slaves. They were not permitted to be read, but, with singular and 
absurd inconsistency, they were printed on the Journal, and there 
declared to be laid on the table under the resolution of the preceding 
21st of December, which expressly prescribed that no such paper should 
be printed. 

On the 5th of March two sets of resolutions were presented ; one from 
the Legislature of Alabama, in favor of the annexation, and the other 
from that of Ohio, protesting against it. One of the resolutions of the 
Legislature of Ohio directed that the Governor of the State, in trans- 
mitting copies of the resolutions, should be requested to accompany it 
with a statement of the votes by which it was passed in each branch of 
the Legislature. The Governor's letter, accordingly, stated that the 
vote was without opposition in one branch, and unanimous in the other. 
To such straits were the party of suppression reduced to sustain their 
system, that they refused permission to the member from Ohio, who pre- 
sented the resolutions, to read to the House this letter from the Governor- 

On the 26th of March Mr. Notes, of Maine, presented a remonstrance 
of thirty-one citizens of Lubec, in that State, against the annexation 
of Texas to the Union, and moved its reference to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. For once» the vigilance of the dark spirit of slavery 
was at fault — the motion to lay on the table was forgotten, and the re- 
monstrance was referred. The committee never looked into it. 

On the 16th of April Mr. Shields, of Tennessee, presented resolutions 
of the Legislature of Tennessee, urging with great earnestness the an- 
nexation of Texas to the Union, and requesting the Senators and Repre- 
sentatives of the State, in Congress, to introduce them to the considera- 
tion of both Houses of Congress. 

Mr. Shields moved that these resolutions, together with all other reso- 
lutions from Stale Legislatures upon the same subject, and the memorials 
and petitions presented to this House at the present Congress in relation 
to the admission of Texas into the Union of these States, be referred to 
a select committee. 

Mr. Bronson, an administration member from the State of New York, 
moved to lay the motion of Mr. Shields, and the resolutions of the Le- 
gislature of Tennessee, on the table ; which was carried by a vote of 
122 to 74 — as nearly as possible the same as that upon the gag of 21st 
December, but not by the same votes. In this case, the members from 
Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina, generally, and several mem- 
bers from Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina, voted against laying 
on the table, who had voted for the gag ; while, on the other hand, a con- 
siderable number of members (nineteen) from the free States, who had 



10 

voted against the gag, now voted to lay the motion of Mr. Shields and 
the Tennessee resolutions on the table. Their motive, doubtless, was a 
distrust of the committee which would be appointed by the Speaker 
upon resolutions urging the annexation, and coming from the Legislature 
of his own State. But here was the dawn of a new day. It was evident 
that henceforth the members from the States whose Legislatures have 
adopted resolutions favoring the annexation would vote for opening the 
discussion, and it was equally clear that the Texas question once opened, 
the gag upon the slavery topics could no longer be eftectively maintained. 

On the 21st of May the resolutions of the Legislature of Massachu- 
setts, solemnly protesting against the annexation of Texas, were pre- 
sented to the House by Mr. Briggs ; and, after some discussion, referred 
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, who never looked into them. 

On the 25th of the same month all the other resolutions of State Le- 
gislatures, and all the petitions, memorials, and remonstrances, relating to 
the same subject, which had been received by the House and laid upon 
the table, were referred to the same committee. 

And on the 13th of June, Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, a member of 
the committee, presented the report of the majority of the committee upon 
these resolutions of seven State Legislatures, and those petitions, memo- 
rials, and remonstrances, of more than one hundred thousand petitioners: 

"ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 

" Mr. Dromgoole, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, upon the subject of the 
annexation of Texas to the United States, reported, that there is now no proposition 
pending in this House either for the admission of the Republic of Texas as a State 
into the Union, or for its territorial annexation to the United States. 

" The committee do not deem it advisable to recommend any action on the part of 
the House of Representatives calculated to prejudge any such proposition, should it 
hereafter be formally submitted for decision, or to forestall public sentiment in relation 
thereto. In consideration whereof, the following resolution is reported : 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from the further 
consideration of the whole subject, and that all the papers relating thereto, and to them 
referred, be laid on the table. 

"Mr. CusHiKG called for a division of the question, so that it might be first taken 
upon that part of the report which proposed to discharge the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. Mr. C. dissented from the report entirely, and should, before he sat down, 
move a recommitment, for the purpose of having the subject more deliberately and 
argumentatively presented to the House. It was due to the country and the subject. 
The preamble says there is no proposition before the House for the annexation of Texas 
to the United States. This might be technically, in strict parliamentary language, 
correct ; since there was not any motion or resolution pending in the House for the 
annexation of Texas. But Mr. C. denied that this was in substance correct. Three 
States of this Union (Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi) have passed resolutions for 
the admission of Texas into the Union ; and of two at least of these States, the reso- 
lutions have been presented here, and are in the possession of the House. In addition 
to which, Texas herself had applied to the United States for admission. This propo- 
sition was pending now, and in force ; and not, as the late report of the Secretary of 
State would seem to intimate, withdrawn from the cognizance of the Government. By 
the very latest intelligence from Texas, the Senate of that Repubhc had distinctly re- 
fused to withdraw the application. Now. some gentlemen might think that this ap- 



IJ 

plication was within the cognizance of the Executive onl}', as in the first instance. 
Mr. C. maintained the contrary most positively. Congress, the House, the People of 
the United States, were under no obligation to wait in such a matter for the initiative 
of the President in regard to it. We, the Representatives of the People, have the same 
power and right as the President to act upon it in the initiative. He might not be 
disposed to do right. It was the duty of the House to see to the interests and the 
rights of the People upon this vital question. The Constitution does not give to the 
Executive any power to admit new States. It is for Co77gress to do it, so far as the 
power resides any where. Let Congress, let the House, speak, and speak out, in the 
face of the country and world. 

•'Furthermore. Three of the States (Ohio, Michigan, and Massachusetts) have 
sent here resolutions solemnly remonstrating against the annexation of Texas. It is 
due to those three States, also, to express our opinions frankly on the subject. It was 
due to the thousands upon thousands of petitioners, whose petitions on this subject 
load the table, to express our opinions. They ask it, they demand it, they have aright 
to it. How long is this House to fold itself in the mantle of its dignity, covering itself 
up in darkness, refusing to utter its opinions, suppressing opinions and debate, dis- 
daining, as it were, to meet the People fairly in the light of day, manfully and hon- 
estly, as becomes their Representatives? Mr. C. insisted upon the duty of the com- 
mittee to make a full, argumentative report. He would not undertake to discuss the 
merits of the question. He was conscious it would be out of order, and he had no 
disposition, on this or any other question, to debate out of order. But he desired to 
see a full report, and therefore he submitted the following motion : 

" That the report be recommitted to the same committee, with instructions to make 
report thereon in full, as to the merits of the questions presented by the resolutions of 
the Legislatures of the several States of Tennessee, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, and 
Massachusetts, and of the various petitions before the House on the subject of Texas. 

"Mr. Cahteb, of Tennessee, said he differed entirely from the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, as to this subject. Although his (Mr. Carter's) own State Legisla- 
ture had memorialized Congress on this question, yet his own course thereupon in 
this House had gone to show that his opinions did not correspond precisely with those 
of his Legislature upon this point. He doubted the expediency of annexing Texas to 
the Union. 

" The Chair reminded the gentleman from Tennessee that this question was not 
now before the House. 

" Mr. Carter said he had only intended to express his own opinion, and to show 
that he was acting disinterestedly. No question was then before the House for the 
annexation of Texas, except as incidentally raised by the presentation of memorials, 
legislative resolutions, &c. Nor could it be fairly a question for the House to consider 
till a report from a committee had been made thereon. 

" Mr. C. would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, why not bring forward 
a counter report on this subject, if dissatisfied with the report of the committee? He 
would warn that gentleman that this was a question that would agitate the country 
from Maine to Georgia, and that the result of that agitation might not be such as that 
honorable member might perhaps prefer. Therefore he thf)ught that the committee, 
in offering the resolutions they had done, had acted a prudent and proper part. Were 
the gentleman to have brought forward a counter report, the question would then be 
fairl}' raised for the House and the country to decide; but at present no such question 
was before the House. 

" The subject was a perplexing one. It was already agitating the country, and the 
more it was discussed the more it would agitate the land. It had been with difficulty 
that the whole mass of the Southern community have been restrained from petitioning 
Congress in favor of tihe annexation. Mr. C. again repeated what were his individ- 
ual opinions on this question ; and said that, if instructed by his constituents to vote 
contrary to those opinions, it being a matter of expediency, he should do so. In the 
absence of instructions, he held it to be equally his duty to vote according to the best 
of his judgment. But he did beg the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr CusmjfG] 
not to embarrass this motion of the committee. Let him bring in, if he thought proper, 
a counter report. 

" Mr. CusHiKG here remarked that, under the circumstances attending the intro- 
duction of the report of the majority, it had been impossible for him to prepare a counter 
report. 



12 

"Mr. Dromgoole said that no proposition for a minority report, or any thing of 
the kind, had ever been made in committee. 

"Mr. Adaiws asked if the numerous legislative resolutions, and the memonals of 
thousands and tens of thousands of the citizens of this country, in relation to thissub- 
jpct, had ever received five minutes' consideration in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

" Mr. Dromgoole said he had but one answer to make to this question; which 
was, to deny explicitly any right of that member, or any other member, to catechise 
the committee as to its action. 

"Mr. Adams immediately rose, (amidst varied cries of "order!"' "go on !"&€.,) 
and said : That is enough, sir ! That, sir, is enough for this House, and for the 
country. The committee refuse to answer. [Much confusion.] 

"Mr. Carter proceeded, and urged the adoption of the resolution reported by the 
committee. 

"Mr. Pickens .^said he concurred in the motion of the honorable gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Ccshixg,] to recommit, with instructions to report som.e propo- 
sition for the action of the House. He was for meeting this question boldly, frankly, 
firmly. He could not agree with the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Cah- 
TEH,] as to the effect of agitating this question. He did not dread such agitation 
He was for letting it go on. It would not be the first question that had agitated the 
American People. He desired to meet it, and at once. He was for letting the coun- 
try see who was for and who was against his People, The Legislature of his own 
State, as well as that of his friend's State, (Tennessee,) and those of several other 
States, had sent up hither their resolutions upon the question. It was agitated on the 
other side, all over the non-slaveholding part of the country, and by their Representa- 
tives upon that floor, for months past. It was time to meet it ; it was time to take a 
decided and bold stand upon it. As a distinguished member [Mr. Adams] of the 
Massachusetts delegation had said on a former occasion, iLwas a question of union or 
disunion. 

"The Speaker reminded the gentleman from South Carolina that he was straying 
from the question before the House. 

" Mr. PiCKExs repeated that he desired to meet this great question at once, and 
that, therefore, he v^'as in favor of Mr. Cushing's motion to recommit, with instruc- 
tions. He desired that the country should know the true position of the question. 
One thing was very certain ; if this Government did not exercise a control over Texas, 
Great Britain would. 

*'The Speaker again called to order. 

"Mr. Pickets concluded by urging the adoption of Mr. Clshing's proposition, 

"Mr. CusHMAX said that a proposition to annex an independent Republic to this 
Union should properly come from that Republic. No such proposition had been made 
to that House. For the purpose of arresting what he thought was a debate altogether 
irregular, he would move the previous question. [Laughter. ] 

" Much confusion then ensued ; and Mr. Picke>-s remarked, ' that is a test ques- 
tion !' and Mr. Adams asked the mover to withdraw the motion, to allow him to re- 
ply to the argument with which the motion had been prefaced by himself, [Mr. 

CrSHMAN.] 

"Mr. Mercer asked what would be the main question; to which the Speaker 
replied, on the adoption of the resolution offered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
to discharge that committee from the further consideration of the subject. 

" The vote on seconding the motion for the previous question stood, ayes 74, noes 
81 ; so there was no second : and the question recurred upon the resolution offered by 
Mr. CrsHixG, to recommit, with instructions. (See above.) 

" Mr. Howard then took the floor ; but the hour appropriated to morning business 
having elapsed, the House, on motion, took up the order of the day, and went into 
■Committee of the Whole (Mr. Craig in the chair) upon the pre-emption bill." 

The following are the proceedings of the House on the 14th of June, 
■as reported in the National Intelligencer of the 15tli : 

"TEXAS. 

"The House then resumed the unfinished business of yesterday morning. 

" And the question being on the following resolution, reported yesterday by Mr, 
iDHOMOooLE, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs: 



13 

*' 'Resolved, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from the fur- 
i her consideration of the whole subject, and that all the papers relating thereto, and 
to them referred, be laid on the table' — 

" And on the amendment thereto by Mr. Gushing. 

" Mr. HowAHD rose, but yielded the floor at the request of 

" Mr. W. Thompsox, who moved to amend the amendment as follows : 

'* Strike out all after ' instructions,' and insert ; ' To report a joint resolution, di- 
recting the President to take the proper steps for the annexation of Texas to the Uni- 
ted States, as soon as it can be done consistently with the treaty stipulations of thi8 
Government.' 

" Mr. Howard said that he regretted that the proposition of the gentleman trom 
New Hampshire [Mr. Cxjshman] for the previous question had not been sustained 
yesterday by the House. He could not anticipate a single good result from the pro- 
longation of a general debate upon the subject of Texas, but, on the contrary, many 
evils, even greater than the useless consumption of valuable time. As the vote of the 
House, however, had been against the previous question, he had risen yesterday to 
vindicate, as far as he could, the Committee on Foreign Affairs from the implied 
charge of failure to perform a duty intrusted to them by the House. The amendment 
now offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Thompson] gives to the 
question an entirely new aspect, and he would be compelled to digress from what had 
been his sole, and still was his main purpose, in order to make some remarks upon 
the new state of the case. The House was master of its own actions, and could, no 
doubt, originate a proposal for the annexation of Texas to the United States ; but a 
committee could only act upon the matters referred to them, and he intended to show 
that no proposition had been heretofore before the House, and, consequently, the com- 
mittee could have made no other report, with propriety, than the one which they had 
rpade. A reference to the Journal would show that, at an early period of the session, 
the House had, by the decisive vote of 127 to 68, (five more than a majority of the 
entire House,) determined to lay upon the table all memorials upon the subject of 
Texas. All committees ought to regulate their action by the expressed will of the 
House. He thought this position would not be disputed. The subject would, there- 
fore, have slept upon the Clerk's table, if a petition, presented afterwards by one of 
the delegation from Maine, [Mr. Notes,] had not been referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, when the attention of the House was not called to it. Jurisdiction 
having been thus given to the committee by the reference of this straggUng petition, 
there ceased to be any objection to the adoption of a resolution offered by the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts, [Mr. AiiAnrs,] sending to them the entire mass of petitions 
from individuals, the magnitude of which might be measured by cubic feet, and, also, 
the resolutions of several Legislatures, which had expressed their opinions upon the 
subject. But he did not consider these papers as raising a question. They were only 
intended, he thought, to bear upon the question after it was raised in some other way, 
At the extra session we had printed and circulated a large edition of the correspond- 
ence between Mr. Forsyth and General Hunt, and, although the proposition for an- 
nexation was not entertained by the President, yet there was a reasonable ground for 
supposing that the subject might be renewed, and all these evidences of public opin- 
ion were probably prepared to meet the contingency when it should happen. But it 
had not happened. The documents before us show that it had not. On the 4th of 
August, 1837, General Hunt addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, proposing 
the annexation of Texas to the United States ; and in his reply of the 25th of August, 
Mr, Forsyth not only declines the proposition, but even declines to reserve it for 
future consideration. No language could be more explicit than this. It was impos- 
sible to mistake it. The Minister Plenipotentiary of Texas, in his answer of Septem- 
ber 12, showed that he did not mistake it, as will be evident from the following 
paragraph : 

"^ The undersigned most respectfully assures the honorable Mr. Forsyth, and, 
through him, his Excellency the President of the United States, that the prompt and 
decisive rejection of the proposition for the annexation of Texas to the United States 
will not be imputed to an unfriendly spirit towards the Government and People of 
Texas.' 

" The prompt anddecisive rejection of the proposition. It was, indeed, so. There 
was no proposition, therefore, pending before the Executive branch of the Governmentj 



14 

and, of course, this House had none before it, derived from the documents communi- 
cated by the President. From what quarter, therefore, could any proposition have 
come, so as to place before the committee a subject upon which they could act ! There 
was none from Texas, and he thought there was none either in the resolutions of 
Legislatures, or petitions of individuals, which had flooded the House in such 
numbers. 

' 'At this point the morning hour expired, and the discussion went over to to-morrow. " 

But note that the motion to recommit the report witli certain instruc- 
tions was made by Mr. Gushing, not as an amendment to the resolution 
reported by the majority of the committee ; and that the resolution 
moved this day was as an amendment to the resolution of Mr. Gushing. 
It was made by Mr. Waddy Thompson, of South Garolina, and brought 
the question, both of the constitutional power of Gongress, and of the 
exoediency of annexing Texas to the Union, directly* before the House. 

The proceedings on the loth of June, rendered memorable by the 
speech of Mr. Howard, chairman of the Gommittee on Foreign Affairs, 
were as follows : 

"ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 

"The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations concerning the Texas ques- 
tion being resumed — 

" Mr. Adams, by leave, made a motion to recommit the report to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations, with instructions to report the followmg resolutions : 

" ' Resolved, That the power of annexing the People of any independent foreign 
State to this Union is a power not delegated by the Constitution of the United States 
to their Congress, or to any department of their Government, but reserved by the 
People. 

" ' That any attempt by act of Congress or by treaty to annex the Republic of Texas 
to this Union would be a usurpation of power, unlawful and void, and which it would 
be the right and the duty of the free People of the Union to resist and annul.' 

" Mr. HowAKD said that he concurred entirely in the report which the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole] had made on behalf of the Committee on Foreign 
Afl'airs, which recommended that all the papers relating to Texas should be laid upon 
Ihe table ; and it might appear inconsistent in him to address the House upon a sub- 
iect which that report, thus receiving his approbation, considered as not being before 
the House. But it would be remembered that on yesterday a motion had been made 
to recommit the report with certain instructions, the adoption of which would of course 
imply that the committee had erred in their judgment. It was, perhaps, his duty, 
certainly his right, to endeavor to show that the committee had not erred ; and with 
fhis view, he had, on yesterday, referred to the correspondence between Mr. Forsyth 
and General Hunt, and deduced from it what he thought a clear inference, that no 
proposition was now pending before the Executive branch of the Government for the 
annexation of Texas to the United States. He had read the letter of the Secretary 
of State, dedinins; even to reserve tlie proposition for future consideration, and the 
acknowledgment of General Hunt, that this was a prompt and decisive rejection. 
The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Ctjshing,] who dissented from the report of 
the committee, had said (as he, Mr. H., found it in his printed speech) that 'this 
proposition was pending now, and in force ; and not, as the late report of the Secre- 
tarv of State would seem to intimate, withdrawn from the cognizance of the Govern- 
ment.' This, then, was the issue which the House had to decide. He could not, 
for his own part, conceive how a rejected overture could be still pending. Texas was 
certainly not bound by it. If the President should change his mind, and announce 
to the Minister from Texas that the proposition would be received and discussed, and 
should find that, in the mean time, Texas had entered into negotiations with Eng- 
iand, or any other Power, could that Government be justly charged with a breach of 
faith 1 Certainly not. The answer to such a charge would be, that when the United 



15 ' ■ 

States promptly and decisively rejected the overture for annexation, Texas was left 
free to pursue whatever other course she chose ; both parties were precisely in the 
same relative position as they were before the proposition was made. The conduct 
of Texas herself proved this. A treaty had since been made, (as we are informed in 
the papers, by the member of this House from Arkansas, upon authority which he 
considers unquestionable,) between the United States and Texas, for the arrangement 
of the boundary line between them : and certainly the conclusion of a treaty between 
two independent Governments was at variance with the attitude in which the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts [Mr. Gushing] desired to place them. There was, there- 
fore, nothing before the House in the shape of a proposition emanating from Texas 
herself, upon which the House, or any committee, could act. 

" Neither was there any specific proposition brought up by the memorial or resolu- 
tions of any Legislature of a State. He held in his hand the proceedings of the 
Legislatures of Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, and Michigan, which he 
would not analyze minutely, because it would occupy too much time ; but he would 
content himself with saying that they all expressed their views in anticipation of the 
question when it should regularly come up, rather than their intention to bring it up. 
If any one should controvert this, he would endeavor to fortify himself by a particular 
examination of these documents. As to the numerous petitions of individuals, remon- 
strating against the annexation of Texas, he supposed that these persons would 
be satisfied as long as Texas remained out of the Union, and, at all events, until 
she again expressed a desire to come in. Many of these petitions loere signed by 
women. He always felt res^ret ivhen petitions thus signed tvere presented to the 
House relating to political matters. He thought that these females could have a suf- 
Jicient field for the exercise of their influence in the discharge of their duties to their 
fathers, their husbands, or their childreti, cheering the domestic circle, and shedding 
over it the mild radiance of the social virtues, instead of rushing into the fierce strug' 
gles of political life. He felt sorrow at this departure from their proper sphere, in 
ivhich there luas abundant room for the practice of the most extensive benevolence and 
philanthropy, because he considered it discreditable, not only to their own particular 
section of the country, but also to the national character, arid thus giving him a right 
to express this opinion. 

" But the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Thompson] has ofiered an amend- 
ment, which brings directly before the House the propriety of making an offer from 
the United States to Texas to receive that country into the Union. He would thank 
the Clerk to rea<l it. 

[" The Clerk then read it, as follows; 

" ' To report a joint resolution directing the President to take the proper steps for 
the annexation of Texas to the United States, as soon as it can be done consistently 
with the treaty stipulations of this Government.'] 

" It would be observed, that these steps were to be taken by the President, not im- 
mediately after the passage of the joint resolution, but at some future time, the same 
as that indicated by the Legislature of Alabama, who express a wish for the annexa- 
tion ' as soon as it can be done without a violation of our honor as a nation, or any 
principle of international law.' The passage of such a resolution would, he thought, 
postpone the advent of the time which that gentleman wished to hasten. The ground 
upon which the President had rejected the overture of Texas was, that its annexation 
would be equivalent to a declaration of war with Mexico. And so it would. Mexico 
was at war with Texas, and blockading her ports. She had a right to do this, and we 
could not complain so long as the laws of nations were observed. But suppose that 
Texas were received into the Union, what would be the condition of things ? Those 
would become the ports of the United States, and the territory of Texas become a 
part of the United States. Mexico would, therefore, be legally invading the terri- 
tory of the United States, by sea and land, with every description of armed force, 
which was, ipso facto, war. 

' ' The contingency contemplated by the amendment of the gentleman from South 
Carolina was, the recognition of the independence of Texas by Mexico; because, until 
that happened, no annexation could be made consistently with our treaty .stipulations 
with Mexico. Now, if Mexico thought that the consequence of her recognition of 
Texas would be its incorporation into the United Slates, and thereby gratifying the 
wishes of Texas, that circumstance alone would of itself induce Mexico to refuse to 
make such recognition. The contingency, therefore, upon which the action of this 



16 

Government was to take place, would be postponed by the very passage of this joint 
resolution, producing an effect exactly the reverse of what the gentleman from South 
Carolina wished. He thought that the recognition of the Republic of Texas, a meas- 
ure which that gentleman had advocated with great ardor and eloquence at the last 
Congress, had thrown an additional dilficulty in the way of its final annexation. 
This opinion was freely expressed at the time, and he had seen no reason to change 
it. The effect had been this : to vary the question of constitutional power from that 
which was twice settled, in the purchases of Louisiana and Florida, and introduce a 
new one ; thus depriving the friends of Texas of the benefit of two precedents, exactly 
in point, and throwing them upon argument alone, instead of argument and precedent 
united. If Texas had not been recognised as an independent Power, and been con- 
sidered, even nominally, as a part of Mexico, and a treaty had been made between 
the United States and Mexico, by which the latter had ceded Texas to the former, 
(the consent of the People of Texas being first obtained,) the case would have been 
parallel with the treaties with France and Spain, by which we acquired Louisiana and 
Florida. Instead of this, the question now was whether we could absorb an entire 
nation by a treaty with that nation. As for himself, Mr. H. said, he could perceive 
no difference between the cases ; but others, amongst whom was the honorable gentleman 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] argued that great difference existed. Great doubt 
was expressed by many of our most distinguished statesmen whether the Federal Gov- 
ernment had the constitutional power to acquire Louisiana under the treaty with 
France ; and some of them had even admitted that it was a case beyond the Consti- 
tution, whilst they were still anxious that the United States should be rounded oft' in 
that direction. But when the case of Florida occurred, the difhculty was lessened ; 
and the third instance would have been more easily accomplished than the second. 
Of this advantage the friends of Texas were now deprived, and had lo meet a new 
question, instead of following in a track already trodden. He could not himself feel 
the force of the difference alleged to exist. The question turned upon the competency 
of the Federal Government to receive, under the Constitution, a portion of territory not 
belonging to the old thirteen United States ; and he could not perceive that the nature 
of the Government which made the grant, whether republic or monarchy, the position, 
whether on this or the other side of the Atlantic, or the amount of land granted, 
whether a portion or the whole of the possessions of the granting Power, at all af- 
fected the question of the power to receive, which could be solved only by a reference 
to the Constitution of the United States. If we had power under that instrument to 
accept Louisiana and Florida from the Emperor of France and King of Spaiu; we 
must have the power to accept Texas from the People who owned it. The question 
was solely as to the power of the grantee to receive, and he could not see how the 
two questions of the person granting and amount granted could influence its decision. 

'' It had been said that the United States were once the possessors of the whole or 
a part of Texas, under the cession of Louisiana. He believed that this was correct, 
although he was not prepared to define the limit to which the claim extended. If this 
was so, we had once before purchased Texas, and sold it to Spain in the Florida 
treaty. What we had once constitutionally bought and sold, could we not buy again "^ 
If the former purchase was invalid, we must, in order to be consistent, relinquish 
Louisiana to France, and Florida to Spain, and restrict ourselves to the boundaries ot 
the thirteen original States ; but no one would advocate this. On the contrary, Lou- 
isiana would remain represented upon this floor, and he hoped Florida would soon be 
by her side. 

" In order to illustrate his opinion that the adoption of the resolution before the 
House would be an anticipation of the subject, and therefore premature, he would re- 
fer briefly to the only three modes in which the President could execute the duty 
which it was proposed to require of him. 

'•' Texas could only be annexed to the United States in one of these ways • 

" 1st. By the exercise of the treaty-making power. 

" 2d. By an exercise of the legislative power of the Federal Government. 

" 3d. By an amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

" It could scarcely be deemed proper for the House of Representatives to direct the 
President to make a treaty upon any subject with any Power. We might as well re- 
quest the Senate to ratify or not to ratify a treaty, when submitted to that body by the 
President for their constitutional action, and such a measure, on the part of this House, 



17 

would strike every mind at once as a departure from every restriction which the Con- 
stitution has placed upon us. It would destroy that beautiful harmony established by 
our ancestors, and introduce in its stead a scene of irregular and ruinous exercise, in 
disorder and confusion, of those powers whose separation, and perhaps contradiction, 
like the centripetal and centrifugal forces of the universe, preserve order and beauty 
in the system. Should a treaty be made by the President and Senate, and this House 
be appealed to for appropriations, or other laws to carry it out, it must gravely weigh 
all the responsibilities of its situation before refusing so to do. He admitted that a 
power of refusal existed ; but it was to be exercised only in the last resort ; it was 
the extreme medicine of the Constitution. It was only when the safety of the nation 
was imminently endangered that the maxim would apply, and salus populi become 
suprema lex. But it was not necessary or proper to anticipate such a state of things. 
If it should occur, the House could then determine its course, without now, in ad- 
vance, pledging itself to any course of measures. 

" But in either of the other two modes of executing the duty, which the instruc- 
tions required at the hands of the President, whether by an act of Congress, or an 
amendment of the Constitution, the House of Representatives would be called upon, 
necessarily, to perform its appropriate functions. Then, better than now, an expres- 
sion of their wishes could be made. At present, there were disturbing and powerful 
causes at work, which he need not mention to the gentleman from South Carolina, 
the effect of which would be to decide this question upon motives, feelings, and in- 
terests, far different from those statesmanlike views which alone should govern the de- 
cision of this deeply important matter. The whole nation was in a state of agitation, 
working like a troubled sea. Whether this commotion would subside or not, and re- 
store to the country that tranquillity which was indispensable for the happy and per- 
manent adjustment of important measures, his power of vision did not enable him to 
foresee. But he could discern plainly that the welfare of the entire People of the 
United States, unconnected with sectional feeling, would be the very last amongst the 
motives which would influence the House, if the vote were now taken upon the Texas 
question. 

" Upon the propriety' of the annexation he would not enter. He had carefully 
avoided bringing that .subject before the House, as he thought its discussion prema- 
ture. The few remarks with which he had troubled the House, upon a different 
point, would not have been made at all if he had not felt bound to sustain the report 
of the committee. He had been drawn into some observations, collaterally, because 
two amendments had been offered, changing the question, after he had taken the 
flodr. 

" Mr. Pethikejt said that he considered that this question had occupied the time 
of the House already too long, to the embarrassment of important public business. 
There had been a speech on each side, and he should now move to lay the whole sub- 
ject on the table. 

"Mr. CusHiNG asked the yeas and nays ; which were ordered. He then asked 
the mover to withdraw his motion, to enable him to interpose a single word of per- 
sonal explanation. He would renew the motion in the behalf of the mover. 

" Mr. Petrikfn, with this understanding, consented. 

" Mr. Gushing then begged leave to disavow any intention to cast any thing like 
rensure upon the course of the rest of the committee, in offering his own proposition. 
This had been imputed to him by the gentleman from Maiyland, who was chairman 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, [Mr. Howard,] and he took this opportunity 
to disavow it. He intended to express dissent, not censure. 

" As he had promised, he renewed the motion of Mr. Petriken, declaring, how- 
ever, his intention to vote against it. 

" Mr. Petriken then said he would withdraw his motion. 

" The Chair said that it was the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

" Mr. CusHiifG withdrew it. 

" Mr. Adams had a word to say. On a former day he had asked a question of the 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs who reported this resolution, as to the 
length of time and the degree of attention bestowed by that committee upon the sub- 
ject-matter of the large number of resolutions of State Legislatures, and of petition! 
of the People, referred thereto. This question had been met with a denial of the right 
of a member of that House to ask it. At the time he (Mr. A.) had said that the couu- 
2 



18 

try, as well as himself, would draw its own conclusions from this reply. His present 
purpose was to ask the chairman of that committee if he and the rest of that com- 
mittee held the doctrine that a member of that House, in the discharge of his public 
duties, had no right to make inquiries of a committee as to the mode in which they 
had discharged their duties 1 Does the chairman take that ground ? 

" Mr. Dromgoole here rose, and wished to ask a question of the Chair. Had a 
member of this House a right, under the rules, to propound such inquiries to a com- 
mittee theieof ? 

" Mr. Shields here asked if the hour for going to the orders of the day had not 
arrived 1 

" Mr. Adams renewed his inquiries of the chairman and the other members of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

"Mr. Howard rose to reply. 

" The Chair announced the orders of the day. 

" Mr. Howard would prefer to reply at that time. There being no objection, he 
proceeded to say that, in making the report they had, the committee had acted under a 
sense of their duty to the House ; and it was for the latter, as a body, to decide 
whether or not they had acted regularly in so doing. In reply to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, he would say that he did go the whole length of the ground taken by his 
colleague of the committee, [Mr. Dromgoolb,] who had brought in the report under 
consideration. He thought it disrespectful to a committee of that House for a mem- 
ber to catechise its members as to the precise time spent in the discharge of its duties, 
and the mode in which those duties were discharged. He stood by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Dhomgoole] on this point. 

" Mr. Adams rose amidst much confusion, occasioned by calls for the orders, 
of the day, and other cries, from various parts of the Hall, and said that the gentle- 
man from Maryland [Mr. Howard] had not chosen to meet the issue tendered him. 
He was interrupted by the Chair, who again araiounced the orders of the day." 

Note, again, that tin; motion made by Mr. Adams, not by leave, but in 
the regular course of the debate, was as an amendment to the amend- 
ment proposed the day before by Mr. Waddy Thompson to the resolu- 
tion offered by Mr. Gushing. The motion was to recommit with in- 
structions. Mr. Thompson proposed different instructions from those 
intended by Mr. Gushing. Mr. Adams proposed instructions different 
from either of the others; and, being in the form of an amendment le- 
an amendment, beyond which the rules of the House do not permit any 
further amendatory motion, they gave Mr, Adams the floor for the naora- 
ing hour of Saturday, the 16th of June., 



SPEECH. 



Saturday, June 16, 1838. 
The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Texas subject, with amend- 
ments proposed thereto hy Mr, Thompsox and Mr. Adams, again coming up for 
consideration — 

Mr. ADAMS rose and said : The proposition moved by my colleague 
[Mr. Gushing] is to recommit the resolution reported by the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, with certain instructions. I shall be entirely satisfied 
if the decision of the House shall be in favor of that proposition. My 
introduction of an amendment to the amendment now pending is only in 
consequence of the gentleman from South Carolina's having moved in- 
structions to the committee to quite a different end from that sought b}' 
my colleague. I do not wish, in the present stage of the debate, to in- 
troduce the general question of the annexation of Texas to the Union, 
I particularly desire the House so lo understand me. The proposition 
of ray colleague is this : 

'^That the report and accompanying papers be recommitted to the same com- 
mittee, with instructions to make report thereon in full as to the merits of the ques- 
tions presented hy the resolutions of the Legislatures of the several States of Ten- 
nessee, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, and Massachusetts, and of the various petitions 
before the House on the subject of Texas." 

His desire is, that (he subject be recommitted, in order to have a de- 
liberate report on the merits of the several resolutions of State Legisla- 
tures, and of the numerous private memorials, petitions, and remon- 
strances which had, at different periods of the session, been referred to 
the committee. That, also, is my desire. The resolution he offered 
does not involve the general question : it seeks only the recommitment 
of the subject, and of the various documents relating thereto, which have 
been sent to that committee, but which the committee have not taken 
into consideration. 

I take it for granted, when the general question comes up, (unless we 
are again to have the previous question called upon us, and all debate 
smothered, as happened when it was up before,) the question will be 
divided, and taken first on the recommitment, and then on the different 
propositions of instruction, in their order. I now state that my only ob- 
ject, at present, is to recommit the subject to £ret a report upon it. It 
was in this view that I found it necessary to take issue with the gentle- 
man from Virginia [Mr. Dromgoole] on the question of the rights of 
this House, of the rights of members of this House, and of the rights 
'and duties of the committees of this House. 

When the subject first came up, I rose in my place and inquired of the 
Speaker, not of the gentleman from Virginia, whether the committee had 



20 

given as much as five minutes' consideration to the several resolutions of 
the Legislatures of sovereign States of this Union, and the very numerous 
memorials and petitions of individual citizens which had been, by order 
of this House, referred to their consideration"? When 1 put that ques- 
tion to the Chair, the gentleman from Virginia rose, and denied my right 
to do so, and declared that he would not be catechised by me. I said, 
at the time, that the reluctance of the committee to answer that question 
was, of itself, sufficient for me, and that I trusted it would be sufficient 
for this House and for the American People. It was a concession that 
the committee never had taken these papers into consideration at alL 
That, I trust, will be the deliberate conviction of the People of the United 
States. 

But this inference is not enough- The gentleman from Virginia as- 
sumed a general principle as to the rights of this House, the rights of 
members of this House, and the rights and duties of committees of this 
House. My question was not personal to the gentleman from Virginia. 
1 did not ask what consideration he had given to these documents ; 1 
asked whether the cnmmittee had considered the memorials of the thou- 
sands and hundreds of thousands of American citizens, and the solemn 
resolutions of the Legislatures of not a few of the States of this Union, 
v;hich had been sent to them that they might be considered. The only 
answer is that of an individual, that " he will not be catechised." This 
is not the answer to which I was entitled ; and I demand an answer yet.. 
Until I get it, my inference will be that those documents never were con- 
sidered by the committee. 

When this question was up during the morning hour, yesterday, I had 
only time, as the hour was about expiring, to give notice to the House 
that I took an issue with the gentleman from Virginia on the great and 
important principle laid down by him touching the rights of this House, 
the rights of members of this House, and the rights and duties of the 
committees of this House. I was arrested by the expiration of the hour. 
I had time only to inquire of the chairman of the committee [Mr, 
Howard] whether he endorsed the principle laid down by his colleague 
on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And I understood him to say that 
he went the full length of the ground taken by that gentleman. I then? 
asked if diere was any other of the members of that committee who took 
the same positron. But before any response was given, the orders of the 
day were named by the Chair, and the subject was fur the time cut off. 

It was, at that time, my intention to ask each member of that com- 
mittee, in order, whether he endorsed the doctrine of the gentleman from 
Virginia ; but, on further consideration, I have concluded not to do so ; 
and for this reason : that some of those gentlemen might probably find 
themselves in the situation of the honorable chairman — between a greaf 
principle of duty on the one hand, and, on the other, of party obligation 
to a personal and political friend ; for to this moment 1 cannot believe 
that the chairman of that committee does, in his heart, assent to the 
soundness of any such principle as that to which he has committed himself, 
Mr. Dromgoole here interposed, and asked whether Mr. A. would 
allow the other members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs now to 
answer his question. He had himself conversed with none of them since 
yesterday, so as to ascertain what their reply would be ; but, after th? 



21 

averment now openly made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that 
some of them would probably find themselves in difficulty how to act 
between duty on the one hand, and party on the other, he did hope that 
all the members would be suffered to answer, each for himself. 

Mr. Howard said that he concurred in this request of his colleague ; 
he hoped the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts would assent to 
the request. 

Mr. Dromgoole added that he hoped, if the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts would not assent, that every member would insist upon his right 
to answer. 

Mr. Thompson hoped no such thing would be done ; this sort of pro- 
ceeding was wholly unparliamentary and improper. He protested against 
such a waste of the time of the House. 

Mr. Legare said that, for one, he was prepared to answer the gentle- 
man's question, though he protested against his right to catechise the 
committee; and as soon as he could obtain the floor he should give the 
reasons why the committee declined being more explicit in their report, 
or entering on the merits of the general question. They were under no 
obligation to do so; and that for ibe reason stated in their report. He 
was fully aware of the importance and novelty of the general principle 
to which tfie gentleman was now speaking, and would give his views of 
it as soon as an opportunity should be allowed him to get the floor. 

Mr. Adams. I did not distinctly hear the gentleman. I now under- 
stand him to decline answering my question. 

Mr. Legarr. What 1 said related to the committee. For myself, I 
have no hesitation in admitting that I have not read the papers, or looked 
into them, nor was I bound to do so. 

Mr. Adams. 1 understand the gentleman from South Carolina now 
formally to admit that he has never looked into the documents referred 
to the committee on the subject of Texas at all. 
Mr. Legare. Not one of them. 
Mr. Adams. Into not one of them ? 
Mr. Legare. Not one. 

Mr. Adams. I beg leave, now, to read the 76th standing rule of this 
House : 

*' It shall be the duty of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to take into consideration 
all matters which concern the relations of the United States with foreign nations, and 
which shall be referred to them by the House, and to report their opinion on the same." 

There is the letter of the law. (Mr. A. here read the rule, very slowly, 
a second time.) The gentleman from South Carolina says that he is 
aware the question is one of immense importance. 

Mr. Legare said he had done nothing incompatible with that rule. He 
had fully considered the subject on which the committee reported, and as 
far as the report went. It was by no means necessary to look into the 
arguments for or against admitting Texas, when the committee concluded 
that no question as to the admission of Texas had yet arisen in the House, 
and did not choose themselves to become the authors of any proposition, 
without the express order of the House. 

Mr. Adams. The gentleman has taken into consideration the reso- 
lutions of sovereign States, and of a vast body of memorials and petitions, 
and has never looked into one of them. [A laugh.] Sir, the time has 



22 

been when I despaired to speak to this House on a great principle, 
when I despaired to speak to the People of this country on a great prin- 
ciple. I will not say that the time has passed when 1 despair to appeal 
to this House on a great national principle. I remember the report of 
the Committee of Elections in the Mississippi case. I remember the 
report of the Duelling Committee. I do not know but that it is despe- 
rate to make an appeal to this House when party crosses its path, but 1 
do not despair to appeal to the People. To them I call to mark the 
principles assumed in this House by members of one of the most im- 
portant committees of the House — a committee to whom the destiny of 
this nation is committed in a greater degree than to any other. 1 call 
them to note what is now passing here. The resolutions of the Legisla- 
tures of six or seven States of this Union, standing on the principles 
ihey respectively maintain, together with memorials, and petitions, and 
remonstrances, from thousands and hundreds of thousands of American 
citizens, have been referred to that committee to consider and report 
thereon. When a question is put, a member of that committee rises in 
his place and denies the right of the House, or of any member, to ask 
whether the committee ever did consider those resolutions and memorials. 
And another member of that same committee answers that he is willing 
to report on these papers without looking into any one of them. Now, 
I beg leave to say, in the face of the country, that I denounce both as 
utterly incorrect, and I hope the People of the United States will do 
themselves justice in this case, as the People of Mississippi have nobly 
done themselves justice in regard to another report to this House. Sir, 
we are in a process in which I hope we shall persevere until such prin- 
ciples shall be forever swept away. Would to God they could be swept 
from the records of this House, as they will be from the practice of all 
future Congresses. I assert, as a great general principle, that when 
resolutions from the Legislatures of States, and the petitions of a vast 
multitude of our fellow-citizens on a subject of deep and vital import- 
ance to the country, are referred to a committee of this House, if that 
committee make up an opinion without looking into such resolutions 
and memorials, the committee betray their duty to their constituents and 
to this House. I give this out to the nation. I ask this nation to reflect 
on the proceedings of the committee and of the House on such princi- 
ples. When the meanest petition of the lowest and poorest individual 
in the country (I will not say slave) is presented in this House and re- 
ferred, I hold it the duty of the committee, to the House, to the country, 
and to the petitioners, to look into the petition before they make up 
their opinion. Here is a broad principle; if I am wrong, let the country 
put me down. It is affirmed that the report of a committee is to be 
made without even looking into the resolutions of Legislatures and the 
petitions of citizens referred to that committee for consideration, There 
I am willing the question shall rest. 

As to the urgency of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Dromgoole,] 
that other members of the committee shall be called upon to say whether 
they endorse his position, the gentleman can ask of them if he pleases ; 
I shall not, for the reason I assign, and for another reason, which 1 will 
five, since he is disposed to insist. 

Mr. Howard here interposed. It was 1 who wished that question 



23 

should be put to the members of the committee. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts intimated plainly, too plainly, that I was influenced by 
some sinister consideration, in common with the gentleman from Virginia, 
in resisting his right to catechise the committee. I now wish the House 
to see whether other members of tiie committee do not agree with us in 
sentiment. I trust my colleague from Virginia will persevere, and I see 
an additional reason for this in what the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has now said. 

Mr. Adams. The chairman did ask, and so did the gentleman from 
Virginia, that the members of the committee might be called upon. 
They both asked this. 1 stated the reason why I should not call upon 
them, viz: because it would place each member of that committee in an 
altitude where he would be obliged to trample on a great principle of 
duty, or to sacrifice, as far as he can be supposed to sacrifice, the judg- 
ment of a colleague on the committee. 1 had witnessed the effect of 
that appeal on the chairman, for 1 do not believe now that that gentle- 
man would be willing to take such a position as was assumed by the gen- 
tleman from Virginia, because the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Legare] did not. The gentleman from South Carolina changes the 
issue. The gentleman from Maryland changes the issue. He yesterday 
supposed that I was putting a personal question to the gentleman from 
Virginia, and this he thought 1 iiad no right to do. But that was not the 
question. There was nothing personal in the matter. I have disclaimed, 
to the utmost, all pretence of right to question the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia, whether he makes up his opinion on a memorial without looking 
into it or not. On that matter he may do as he pleases. So may the 
gentleman from South Carolina. My question was, whether the com- 
mittee had done their duty, as they are required by the rule of this 
House, and by every principle of reason, to do. Why do you refer any 
paper to a committee, if their mind is previously so made up that they 
will not look into one of those papers 1 What is it but a waste of time 
to refer documents to a committee who have thus prejudged the subject? 
I say it is contrary to the very vital existence of this House, and of the 
committees of this House ; and I say that if the avowal of such a princi- 
ple was made in respect to the memorial of a single individual, it would 
not be tolerated. Supposing it were a petition of a soldier of the Revo- 
lution, or the case of Mrs. Heileman, which we had but yesterday before 
us, a case not provided for by law, and the committee should take such 
ground, what would this House say? I ask the gentleman from South 
Carolina himself to tell me what would this House say? A committee 
comes in and reports against the petition of Mrs. Heileman. They are 
asked whether they looked at her [)etilion, and one of the committee rises 
and says, no; I had made up my mind before ; I did not care what was 
in the petition ; I had considered the subject, and I thought the pro- 
visions of existing laws to be sufficient. What would this House say to 
such an answer as that ? And if it would not be tolerated in the case of 
one poor widow, what shall be said when the question referred to the 
committee is the fate and fortune of this Union — the existence of this 
Union — the existence of freedom among the race of man? 

I have said, and I repeat, that 1 wish every member of the committee 
to understand that it is not in reference to his own individual opinion or 



24 

conduct that I Iiave wished to put any question. His opinions I am 
willing to hear in this House, from himself, as he chooses to express 
them. What 1 want to hear is, the opinion of the committee, and it 
was on that principle I desired the recommitment. I wish the papers 
recommitted, that the committee may be required by this House to do 
their duty, as they now avow they did not, and deny the right of the 
House to call upon them for its performance. 

There is one point in this matter of more importance than any other. 
The assumption of the gentleman from Virginia, and the gentleman from 
South Carolina, and, as far as I understand him, of the chairman of the 
committee, forms a part of that system of contempt for the right of peti- 
tion to which, I am sorry to say, this House has given its sanction. I 
say that this is a part of that system. I have always maintained that 
when the petitions of the People of the United States, and, still more in 
point of importance, though not in point of principle, resolutions of 
Legislatures, on questions of the deepest importance, whether the opin- 
ions which they express be on the one side or on the other of those ques- 
tions, are presented to this House, it is the duty of this House to con- 
sider them, either immediately or through its appropriate committees ; 
and I insist that when such memorials are referred to a committee it is 
the duty of the committee to consider them before reporting in regard to 
them, and to report upon and after due consideration of their contents, 
and to form a judgment from their merits. This I take to be the true 
scope and meaning of the Constitution, when it declares that the right of 
petition shall not be abridged. And if it is our duty to hear and to con- 
sider the petition of a single individual, it is still more our duty to hear 
and to consider the resolutions of a State Legislature. 

But this committee have gone further in trampling upon the right of 
petition, of which the House has given them an example. The House 
has not gone the length of refusing to receive petitions, but with a dis- 
tinction, which I am ashamed to mention in the face of this nation, they 
have resolved, with great solemnity, to receive memorials and then not 
to consider them. That principle has been extended by this committee. 
Sir, if a Yankee was ever charged with manufacturing wooden nutmegs, 
that was the man to advance such a principle. [A laugh.] Is this 
principle the wooden nutmeg of this House 1 It is that, or it is nothing, 
I say this for the benefit of such members of this House as are willing to 
take shelter from the indignation of their constituents under such a dis- 
tinction. 

The Chair here interposed, and reminded the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts that it was not in order to speak disrespectfully of the action of 
the House. 

Mr. Adams. I am much obliged to the Speaker for not having 
stopped me before. [A laugh.] I assume it as a principle that it is 
the duty of this House to receive the petitions of all the citizens of the 
United States, if couched in respectful language; and I further assert it 
as a principle, that it is our duty not only to receive, but to consider 
them ; and I say that if we receive and refuse to consider, we shelter 
ourselves under a distinction unworthy of this House — a distinction that 
would be unworthy of any man in private life, and much more of the 
highest legislative body in the country. 



25 

The Speaker here interposed, and observed that he could not per- 
ceive how these remarks were connected with llie subject before the 
House. 

Mr. Adams. That I will endeavor to show. I will endeavor to make 
it very clear to the Speaker. I say that the principle avowed by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Legare] is but a carrying further 
of a principle which I reprobate, though it has been three times sanc- 
tioned by a vote of this House. The gentleman extends the principle 
by carrying it into the doings of a committee. In this case, the House, 
after receiving and slumbering over multitudes of petitions and me- 
morials, and after treating, in various methods, the solemn resolutions of 
State Legislatures, after laying them on the table time after time, did 
finally condescend to refer one to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
That was a reversal, so far as it went, of the doctrine and practice which 
had prevailed. The House, in that case, treated a memorial with so 
much respect as to refer it to a committee. 

Sir, the standing committees are the eN'es, the ears, and, in a great 
degree, the judgment of this House. They are instituted for that very 
end. They are appointed to meet the subjects sent to us, to consider 
them, and mature them for our action, and thus to save the House ihat 
prolixity of detail which would otherwise be unavoidable. When the 
House has full confidence in its committees, they effect this object. 
Many and many an act is passed in this House entirely and solely on 
the confidence it reposes in its committees. This is necessary for the 
expediting of public, and, still more, of private business. It is indispen- 
sable. We must have confidence in our committees; we are warranted 
in it by the rules of the House which prescribe their duties. 1 have al- 
ready pointed out the rule which marks out the duty of that particular 
committee to which these memorials, touching the annexation of Texas, 
were referred. One petition was referred to that committee; I under- 
stood the chairman to say it was done through inadvertence. Happy- 
inadvertence ! it has given us one step in advance of that system of treat- 
ment by which the People of the United States have been governed for 
years. But what a strange thing is it for the chairman of a standing 
committee of this House to say that a petition on a most important sub- 
ject, a subject involving the very existence of the Union, has, through 
the inadvertence of the House, been suffered to be referred to a com- 
mittee! What is this inadvertence? Why, sir, it is the inadvertence of 
our not having been sufficiently cautious in suppressing the right of peti- 
tion. [A laugh.] Yes, sir, in an unguarded moment we opened the 
doors of this House for the People to petition it; we opened the door to 
the Legislatures of the States to commune with the Legislature of the 
Union on a subject of the most vital importance. Well, sir, if it was by 
inadvertence in the first instance, what will the honorable chairman 
make of the subsequent reference of other memorials? They were made, 
I believe, mostly at my instance. They were made publicly. They 
were made without opposition. They were made when the House knew 
perfectly what they implied, and they were deliberately sustained by the 
House. What says the chairman to that? The gentleman yesterday 
referred us to page 67 of the Journal, where, he told us, we should find 
a vote of 127 to 68, laying this whole subject on the table- Yes, sir. 



26 

the chairman gives the reference very correctly. There was such a vote ; 
and how came it to pass] Sir, there is a gentleman immediately before 
me, (Mr. A. looked at Mr. Wise,) himself the champion of free debate 
in this House, whom I have many a time heard with great delight main- 
taining not only that right, but occasionally the riglit of petition also. It 
was on his motion that this was done ; and I remember telling him at 
the time, in a friendly conversation, that he had now changed sides, and, 
frora being the advocate of the right of petition and of free debate, had 
become the competitor of a gentleman from another quarter for the 
office of mover-general of previous questions and layings on the table. 

[At this point the morning hour expired, and the subject of course lies 
over.] 

Tuesday, June 19, ]838. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texas being again 
under consideration as the unfinished business of the morning hour — 

Mr. Adams said that, from the interrupted manner in which every 
argument must necessarily be conducted when confined to the morning 
hour, it became necessary to recapitulate every morning the actual state 
of the question before the House. 

[He then stated the original report of the Committee on Foreign Re- 
lations, the resolution introduced by Mr. Gushing, the amendment thereto 
proposed by Mr. Thompson, and his own amendment, as it has hereto- 
fore been given.] 

The ground (said Mr. A.) on which my colleague [Mr. Gushing] 
moved his resolution calling for a report from the Gommittee on Foreign 
Affairs was, that the committee requested to be discharged from all the 
memorials and resolutions referred to them on the subject of Texas, 
without having taken them into consideration at all ; and he dissenting 
from this report, and the committee not having taken one of those papers 
into consideration at all, he was thus deprived of the opportunit}'^ of pre- 
senting a counter report, as he was desirous of doing. It will be recol- 
lected, when my colleague offered his resolution for a recommitment, and 
debate had arisen on the question of its adoption, I asked whether the 
committee had considered the multitude of memorials and petitions and 
the resolutions of State Legislatures which had been referred to them. 
I was answered by one of the members of that committee, who denied 
my right to ask such a question, and said that " he would not be cate- 
chised by me." Thinking this a very extraordinary answer to any in- 
quiry which I thought myself fully entitled to make, I applied to the 
chairman of the committee to know whether he endorsed that position, 
and I understood him to say that he did go with that gentleman to the 
whole extent; and, further, that he considered it as disrespectful to a 
committee for any member of the House to ask if it had performed the 
duty assigned to it by the House. This answer I considered quite as 
extraordinary as the other. Subsequently, another member of the com- 
mittee, apparently unwilling to hold himself responsible for the position 
taken by his colleague of the committee, frankly declared that he for 
himself would answer the question — that he had not looked into one of 
the papers. This reply was at least as extraordinary to nie as that of 



27 

his colleague ; and so extraordinary that I repeated his words, and asked, 
"what] not into one of them?" and he reiterated the reply, "no, not 
one." Then, I think, the chairman of the committee, ceasing to pursue 
thai particular inquiry, assigned the reasons why he should oppose the 
recommitment ; confining, however, his remarks principally to the 
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Thompson,] 
and intimating to him that that gentleman was going counter to his own 
views, thereby warranting the apprehension that the chairman concurred 
with the gentleman from South Carolina in his ultimate object, the an- 
nexation of Texas to the Union, which he charged him with having re- 
tarded, instead of forwarding, by precipitating the acknowledgment of 
the independence of Texas as a sovereign State. The chairman thought 
the amendment I had offered unworthy of any answer. It declared that 
the power of annexation to this Union of the People of any other State 
was a power not delegated by the People of the United States to Con- 
gress, or any other authority of this Government, but reserved to the 
People. This was the first of the two resolutions which I offered. The 
chairman thought it not worth his while to answer that at all. He said 
there had been some doubts on the question, but cited the cases of 
Louisiana and Florida, and added that some persons thought there was a 
great distinction between the admission of those countries and the admis- 
sion of Texas, but that he never had been able to see any ; from which 
it rnay be inferred that he is himself ready for the annexation as soon as 
the consent of Congress can be obtained. 

It is not my purpose at this time to enter upon that discussion ; but I 
shall now answer some observations of the honorable chairman as to the 
manner in which the resolutions and memorials were referred to his 
committee, and the preceding action by which they were laid upon the 
table. He referred me to a vote of the House on the 13th of December, 
when, by a majority of 127 to 68, the memorials at thai time before this 
House were ordered to be laid upon the table ; and he inferred from this 
vote the solemn determination of the House that all memorials on that 
subject should be laid on the table in like manner, and that no further 
action of the House should be had in regard to them, I admitted the 
fact of the vole ; and stated that it had been taken at the motion of a 
gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wise,] whom I do not now see in his 
place : a motion very unusual with him. I refer to that now, because, 
after the expiration of the morning hour last Saturday, he came over to 
my seat, and desired me, in case he should not be in the House this 
morning, to give his explanation as to his reasons for making that mo- 
tion. He said it had been, indeed, at his motion that the resolution 
passed ; but that it had not been his intention that the laying of these 
resolutions on the table should be the final action of the House upon 
them. With regard to the petitions against slavery, as to which an act 
of proscription was passed by this House on the 21st of December, his 
vote had been given on the ground that those petitions asked for that 
which this House had no constitutional power to grant ; on this ground 
he moved to lay them on the table, though he should himself have pre- 
ferred that they should nol have been even received. They were re- 
ceived, however, against his will; and then, as the measure he next pre- 
ferred, he moved to lay them on the table. He had not such a view, 



28 

liovvever, as to these memorials against the annexation of Texas, because 
he did consider the House as perfectly competent and at liberty to 
act upon them ; and his motion to lay them on tlie table was intended 
only as a postponement of them for a time, that they might be afterwards 
taken up and acted upon. I make these explanations for him, and with 
entire satisfaction on my part. And this shows that the assumption of 
the chairman, as to the intent of the House in laying these papers on the 
table, was at least not the intention of the mover of the resolution ; and 
my inference is that the House did not intend so neither. 

But it is necessary to refer a little further to the action of the House 
on those petitions and memorials whicli had then been presented lo the 
House, to show what was then done in regard to them by this House, and 
particularly by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The 
Journal of the House, on the 12th of December, shows the following 
entry : 

♦' Mr. J. Q. AoAsrs presented a remonstrance of Nancy Ripley and 237 other 
women of Plymouth, in the State of Massachusetts, against the annexation of Texas 
to the Union of these States ; and, thereupon, 

" A motion was made by Mr. A. that the said remonstrance, together with one 
hundred and ninety other hke remonstrances, petitions, and memorials, numerously 
signed, and by him presented to this House at the last (extra) session of Con- 
gress; as, also, the several remonstrances, memorials, and petitions, against the annex- 
ation of Texas to the Union of these States, presented to this House at the last ses- 
sion of Congress by the several other members from the State of Massachusetts, be 
referred to a select committee. 

"A motion was made by Mr. Howard, that the said remonstrances, memo- 
rials, and petitions, be referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs ; which motion, 
under the rules, takes precedence of the motion to refer to a select committee. 

"And, debate arising, the said remonstrance and motions were laid on the table, 
under the 48th rule of the House, to be taken up in the order of presentation." 

The motion made by me was, that the petition I then presented, to- 
gether with 190 others presented by me at the September session, and 
signed by upwards of 20,000 persons, and others to an equal or greater 
amount presented by my colleagues, should be referred to a select com- 
mittee. The first objection to this was made by the chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, who claimed the jurisdiction of this sub- 
ject to himself. He was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
and, as such, he insisted on having the consideration of the memorials. I 
presume he thought that the matter they related to was of immense im- 
portance, and one not to be passed over in silence. This appears, from 
the fact of his claiming the right that they should be referred to himself 
and his own committee. Sir, I have great respect for that committee, 
considering it, as I do, the most important of all the standing committees 
of this House, not excepting the Committee of Ways and Means, nor 
the Committee of Elections; and I entertain great respect for all the 
members of the committee. But, still, sir, it was not exactly the com- 
mittee to which I should have preferred to have these papers referred, 
and that for two reasons: The committee, in two senses, is a party com- 
mittee; and this is a question, in two senses, of a party nature. For, 
first, it is a sectional question, a question of the North and the South, 
touching deep, abiding, and most important interests ; and, in that point 
of view, a majority of the committee represents a minority of the People 
of the United States. It is a committee consisting of five Representa- 



29 

tives from slaveholding States,*and four from States non-slaveholding; 
a distinction in the committee directly tiie reverse of that of the interests 
represented by them. A minority of the People of the United States is 
represented by a majority of that committee, and this on a question vital 
to their interests. In the next place, it is a question of deep party con- 
cern as to the Administration and the Opposition parties of the country 
at this time; and the committee consists of six friends of the present 
Administration, and only of, at most, three of the Opposition ; more 
probably, I might say, of two to seven in favor of the Administration. 

Now, that this is a question between the free and the slaveholding 
States, I believe no man can have any doubt at all. If he has, an in- 
spection of the yeas and nays on any one of the questions which distin- 
guish the two will immediately satisfy him. That it is a question pecu- 
liarly interesting to the present Administration, which is understood, 
avowedly, boastingly, and openly, to be the Administration of a Northern 
man with Southern principles, there cannot be a doubt. This is the com- 
bination in the committee : a sectional combination of interests of the 
slaveholding against the free States, and an Administration combination 
of a Northern Administration with Southern principles. Sir, of those 
Southern principles affecting Northern men we have daily demonstration 
in this House, to which it is unnecessary for me to refer- But thus it is. 
This committee, the most important in the House, is composed, first, with 
regard to sectional questions, of a majority of members representing a 
minority of the People ; and, secondly, as to the question of Administra- 
tion and Opposition, it is a committee consisting of two thirds Adminis- 
tration men, and less than one third of Opposition men. 

Now, I will not ask what is the relative strength of this Administra 
tion and its opponents in the People of the United States. We are 
receiving daily proofs of that. I will not ask what is the relative pro- 
portion in this House of Administration and Opposition men: we had 
yesterday, on an exceedingly trifling question, a demonstration of what 
that was, when the vote stood 99 to 99, and was made 99 to 100 only 
by the casting vote of the Speaker. Now, of a House thus constituted, 
here is a committee on subjects of the deepest interest to the country, to 
the whole country, and to every part of it, in which six and a half or 
seven members are Administration men, and the residue belong to the 
Opposition. I say, then, that this committee is not the committee to 
which I by preference should have referred those petitions and memorials 
which had been committed to me that I might present them to the House, 
and might do all that was in my power to do justice to the memorialists. 
Observe, there was then no resolution presented from any State Legis- 
lature ; but on my motion to refer the memorials to a select committee, 
the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs seized upon them, 
and insisted that his committee must have them — a committee consistinr 
of five slaveholders and four freemen, and six and a half supporters of the 
Administration of the Northern man with Southern principles. This 
was the committee that must have jurisdiction over this all-absorbing 
question. 

The first thought of the Speaker was, that a motion to refer to a 
standing committee of the House took precedence of a motion for a select 
committee. I do not mention this to complain of it at all. A debate 



36 

arose, and the consideration of the suhject was postponed. However, it 
seems that even that did not answer. Observe, that the famous resolu^ 
tion of tiie 2lsl of December — Patton's gag — had not then been passed 
by the House. No resolution had then been adopted by which the 
wliole mass of the will, wants, and prayers of the People of the United 
States was struck away, I then presented another petition, and made 
the same motion that it be referred to a select committee ; the chairman 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs immediately started up, and moved 
that it be referred to that committee. The petitions having been taken 
up next day, a motion was then made by Mr. Wise to lay them on the 
table ; and I find from, the Journal that the vote stood, 127 to 68. Then, 
a few days after, came the general resolution of the 21st of December, 
requiring that all memorials, petitions, and papers, referring to slavery 
and the slave trade, be laid upon the table, without reading, printing, or 
further action of the House ; and from that time, for two or three 
months, the same befell every petition and memorial in which the name 
of Texas was concerned. The House cannot have forgotten that, when- 
ever a motion was made for a select committee, there never failed some 
voice to be heard; or, if there did, the Speaker considered it as a mat- 
ter of course, constructively, that a motion was made to lay the papers 
on the table, and laid on the table they were. 

But on the 14th of February I find an entry on the Journal, stating 
that Mr. Heman Allen presented the following resolutions of the Legis- 
lature of the State of Vermont : 

" LEC-ISLATUBE OF VERMONT TEXAS SLAVERY THE SLATE TRADE, &C. 

"The committee to whom were referred numerous petitions of citizens in all parts 
of the State, praying that our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Repre- 
sentatives requested, to use their influence to prevent the annexation, by that body, 
of Texas to the United States, and calling on the General Assembly of Vermont it- 
self to protest against the same in any way being done — 

" And to whom were also referred numerous memorials from various parts of the 
State, praying this honorable body to adopt resolutions declaring — 

"First. That Congress has the constitutional power to abolish slavery and the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia ; 

" Second. That it has the constitutional power to abolish them in the several Terri- 
tories of the Union where they exist ; 

-'Third. That it has the constitutional power to prohibit the slave trade between the 
several States of the Union ; and 

"Fourth. That, in regard to all these particulars, Congress ought immediately to 
exercise that power — 

-'And to whom were also referred numerous petitions, praying this honorable body 
to protest against the admission of any new State into this Union whose Constitution 
tolerates domestic slavery, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to 
report as follows ; 

"The committee have not been enabled to find in the Constitution of the United 
States any provision delegating to Congress power to incorporate with our territory a 
separate and independent State. Such is Texas. It is true Congress possesses power 
to admit into the Union " new States;" but it is believed they must be those, and 
only those, whose constitutional forms of government are authorized and approved 
by the legislative sanction of that body. 

"The purchase of Louisiana and Florida, and the annexation of them to the terri- 
tory of the Government, were, it is believed, assumptions of power on the part of 
she Government with which the Constitution did not clothe that body. Popular ap- 
probation, added to the fact that these acquisitions were necessary to the safe and 
■convenient use by our fellow-citizens of large sections of our country lying contigu- 



31 

ous to them, prevented, at the time, any strong opposition to these acts of purchase, 
or any examination of a serious character into the authority by which they were done. 
But, leaving out of view what is thought to be a decisive constitutional inhibition of 
the annexation of Texas to the Union, there are other objections which seem insur- 
mountable to the committee. The State of Mexico, of which Texas was one of the 
confederate provinces, and from which it has but lately been torn by violence, had 
adopted, and practically carried out, in her political organization, sentiments that, it 
seem.s to the committee, lie at the foundation of all just government, and which are 
thus happily set forth in the Constitution of this State : *All men are horn equally free 
and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, among 
which are the enjoying and defending of life and liberty ,• acquiring, possessing, 
and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.' 
Under the influence of these principles, Mexico, in a manner that won for her the 
augmented respect of the civilized world, had honorably abolished the system of sla- 
very that attached to her during her colonial dependence on the kingdom of Spain. 
Texas, on the other hand, no sooner had separated from Mexico, and assum.ed an in- 
dependent position, than she showed an utter disregard of these principles, and of 
the just respect of the great body of Christian nations, by incorporating indissolubly 
with her political system the enslavement, the unconditional and perpetual enslave- 
ment, of a part of the human family — of that part, too, who, it seems to your com.- 
mittee, have already wept long enough over the wrongs and afflictions they have suf- 
fered from their brethren. 

" Against every form, of oppression the People of Vermont have, at all times, borne 
honorable testimony. In their Constitution they have published to the world their 
everlasting opposition to slavery — even down to the minutest and least revolting of 
its modifications. It would, then, be inconsistent in Vermont — it would prove that 
she had somewhat cooled in the fervor of her love for liberty — should she consent to 
be drawn into close and fraternal bonds with a People who, beyond any yet known in 
modern times, have m.ade the most deliberate and heartless assault on human freedom. 

' 'There is one other reason against this measure that the committee ought not to 
omit presenting to your honorable body. Its most industrious advocates urge it, not 
because our population, too crowded for our present bounds, justly call for others 
more extended ; not because it is necessary to the unencumbered, safe, and profitable 
use and enjoyment of all the resources and advantages of any part of the territory 
we now possess ; but for the avowed object of adding to and confirming the slavehold- 
ing influence in the management of the Government. The anarchy and disorder that 
now prevail in the South ; the apparent overthrow, of late, of her own constitutional 
and legal barriers, erected for the security of the citizens, and the seeming want of 
power in her proper authorities to re-establish them ; the illegal outrages which her 
own citizens, as well as those from the free States, have suflfercd for the last two or 
three years in the South, and to which, it would appear, up to this time, they are ex- 
posed — outrages that, so far as your committee have the means of inform.ation, have, 
in many instances, been provoked by an honorable advocacy of liberty, and a con- 
demnation of slavery not less honorable, or from a suspicion that the one was hon- 
ored and the other detested — outrages that have been passed by unpunished and un- 
noticed by the proper tribunals where they have been perpetrated : these, and other 
fearful sacrifices of important interests by the North, demanded by the South to be 
offered up for the security of her peculiar institution ; the surrender that she asks from 
us of the freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, the right of petition—all these 
united inspire your committee with a well-founded apprehension that the additional 
weight which the annexation of Texas to the United States would give to the slave- 
holding interest in our political organization, would, in all probability, soon lead either 
to a dissolution of the Union, or to the political degradation of the free States, and, 
eventually, to the entire overthrow of their common liberties : Wherefore the com- 
mittee recommend the adoption by the General Assembly of the following resolutions , 

"W. R. RANNEY, 
"MILTON BROWN, 

" For Committee. 

"1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, That our Senators in 
Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use their influence in 
that body to prevent the annexation of Texas to the Union. 



32 

"2. Resolved, That, representing as we do the People of Vermont, we do hereby, 
m their name, solemnly protest against such annexation in any form. 

"3. Resolved, That, as the Representatives of the People of Vermont, we do sol- 
emnly protest against the admission into this Union of any State whose Constitution 
tolerates domestic slavery. 

"4. Resolved, That Congress have full power, by the Constitution, to abolish sla- 
very and the slave trade in the District of Columbia and in the Territories of the 
United States. 

" 5. Resolved, That Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit the slave trade 
between the several States of this Union, and to make such laws as shall effectually 
prohibit such trade. 

"6. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives 
requested, to present the foregoing report and resolutions to their respective Houses 
in Congress, and use their influence to carry the same speedily into effect- 

' ' 7. Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of 
the foregoing report and resolutions to the President of the United States, to the Ex- 
ecutives of the several States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in 
Congress." 

Then comes the authentication of the resolutions, as passed by both 
Houses of the Legislature of the State of Vermont. It is worthy of 
remark how these resolutions were disposed of. This, be it remem- 
bered, was the first application from one of the sovereign States. It 
was presented nearly two months after the gag, and the entry on the 
Journal states that the resolutions were laid on the table under the reso- 
lution of the House of the 21st of December. That is the gag. Was 
it not most extraorditaary ? What was the resolution of the 21st of De- 
cember? It declares 

"That all petitions, memorials, and papers, touching the abolition of slavery, or 
the buying, selling, or transferring of slaves, in any State, District, or Territory of 
the United States, be laid upon the table, without being debated, printed, read, or re- 
ferred, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon." 

Yet here are the resolutions printed ; yes, printed on the Journal of 
this House ; and then it is said that they were laid on the table under this 
resolution, which declares that they should not be printed. Why, what 
does the Journal mean? We {Rid it over and over again that no resolu- 
tion or paper on this subject shall be printed. Yet here the resolutions 
are printed, and it is declared that they are laid on the table under that 
resolution. Now, if the resolutions might be printed, why might they 
not be debated ? Why not read ? Why might not the House act ou 
ihem? Is it that there is something so odious, so detestable, in that reso- 
lution, that when the Speaker came to determine how the Journal of that 
day should be made up, he dared not carry it into effect ? Was it that he 
did not dare to insult a State of this Union by denying its right to have 
its resolutions printed on the Journals of this House? Was that the rea- 
son? I hope it was ; because, if I can bring the Speaker and this 
House to be ashamed of the resolution, I hope it will soon disappear, at 
least from the practice of this House, forever. Was this the reason ? 
Or was it, as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign A flairs said of 
the reference of a memorial to that committee, done from inadvertence? 

Thus stood matters on the i4th of February. On the 26th of March, 
six weeks later, Mr. Noyes, from Maine, presented a memorial and re- 
monstrance from 31 citizens ^^\' Lubec, in Maine, against the annexation 
of Texas to the Union. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Lt;- 
g.\re;] does not know that. [A laugh.] He knows nothing about it. 



33 

He has not looked into the paper, and I give him this now as informa- 
tion. The memorial was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
There was the inadvertence, and here is the remonstrance : 

" To the honorable the fSenateand the House of Representative/! of the United States 
in Congress assembled : 

"The undersigned, inhabitants of Lubec, in the 8tate of Maine, solemnly protest 
against admission of Texas into the Union. 

"LuBBc, March 15, 1838." [Signed by 33 names.] 

That is the whole, sir. There is not one word of argument, not a 
reason is given. It expresses simply the feeling of the petitioners. Was 
it to load the shoulders of the Committee on Foreign Affairs with too 
much labor and toil to require them to look into this memorial ? No. 
But they did not look into it. They never have read it. I presume 
there is not a member of that committee that knew of its existence till 
this moment. They hear of it now for the first time. Still it was re- 
ferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and a standing rule of this 
House declares that the commiitee shall take it into consideration. The 
reference was made on the 26th of March. Did they take it into con- 
sideration 1 No, sir. The gentleman from South Carolina has answered 
that question. He says that he never looked into one of these memo- 
rials, and he speaks, no doubt, for the whole committee. He does not, 
like his colleague, [Mr. Dromgoole,] declare that he will not be cate- 
chised. No, he comes out fairly, and says, 1 never did look into one of 
them. The committee, therefore, from the 26th of March to this time, 
nearly three months, never looked into that petition. Well, sir, six 
weeks later — I cannot quote the Journal, because it has not been deliv- 
ered to us — I applied for it, and was told that the manuscript is at the 
printer's 

Mr. Cambreleng here rose, and inquired of the Ciiair whether the 
morning hour had not expired. 

The Chair announced that the hour had expired, whereupon Mr. 
Adams resumed his seat. 

Wednesday, June 20, 1838. 

Mr. Adams said that he was yesterday observing upon the course of 
the House in regard to the petitions of the People, and the joint resolu- 
tions of several State Legislatures, in relation to the annexation of Texas 
to the Union. He had stated what had been the action of the House in 
regard to the first memorials presented by himself, and the course pur- 
sued with regard to them, and those which followed, by the chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, when he (Mr. Adams) had moved to 
refer them to a select committee. He had also referred to the succes- 
sion of legislative resolutions from the different States that had sent them 
to that House, upon this subject, and which, till some time in the month 
of March, 1838, had successively been ordered to lie on the table. 
Among these were the resolutions of the Legislature of the State of 
Rhode Island. He mentioned these particularly, because Mr. Tilling- 
HAST had expressed a wish to speak upon them, and he had told that 
gentleman that, in the course of his remarks, it was his intention particu- 
larly to allude to them, as well as to the resolutions upon the same sub- 
3 



34 

ject from other States of the Union. He was not at thut time aware thai 
those resolutions had not boon presented to and acted on by this House. 
He then had the following resolutions read at the Clerk's table: 
"State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 

" In General Asse.-mblt, October Session, A. D. 1837. 
" Whereas the compact of union between these Slates was entered into by the Peo- 
ple thereof in their respective States, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the 
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity ;' 
and, thereupon, a representative Government was instituted by them, with certain 
Hmited powers, clearly specified and defined in the Constitution ; all other powers, no! 
therein expressly relinquished, being ' reserved to the States, respectively, or to the 
People:' and whereas this limited Government possesses no power to extend its juris- 
diction over any foreign nation ; and no foreign nation, country, or people, can be ad- 
mitted into this Union but by the sovereign will and act of the free People of all and 
each of these United States ; nor without the formation of a new compact of union, 
and another frame of government radically difierent in objects, principles, and powers,, 
from that which was framed for our own self-government, and deemed to be adequate 
to all the exigencies of our own free Republic : Therefore, 

" Resolved, That we have witnessed with deep concern the indications of a disposi- 
tion to bring into this Union, as a constituent member thereof, the foreign province or 
territory of Texas. 

'^Resolved, That although we are fully aware of the consequences which must fol- 
low the accomplishment of such a project, could it be accomplished — aware that it would, 
lead speedily to the conquest and annexation of Mexico itself, and its fourteen remain- 
ing provinces or intendencics, which, together with the revolted province of Texas,^ 
would furnish foreign territories and foreign people for at least twenty members of the 
new Union. That it would load the nation with debt and taxes, and, by involving 
it in perpetual wars and commotions, both foreign and internal, would furnish a pre- 
tence (which a state of war never fails to furnish) for the assumption and exercise of 
powers incompatible with our free republican institutions, and subversive of the liber- 
ties of the People. That the Government of a nation so extended and so constructed 
would soon become radically changed in character, if not in form; would unavoidably 
become a military Government, and, under the plea of necessity, would free itself from 
the restraints of the Constitution, and from its accountability to the People. That the 
ties of kindred, common origin, and common interests, which have so long bound 
this People together, and would still continue to bind them — these ties, which ought 
to be held sacred by all true Americans, would be angrily dissolved ; and sectional 
political combinations would be formed with the newly admitted foreign States, un 
natural and adverse to the peace and prosperity of the country. That the civil Gov- 
ernment, with all the arbitrary powers it might assume, would be unable to control 
the storm : the usurper would find himself in his proper element ; and, after acting 
the patriot and hero for a due season, as the only means of rescuing the country from 
the ruin which he had chiefly contributed to bring upon it, would reluctantly and 
modestly allow himself to be declared ' Protector of the Commonwealth.' That we 
are fully aware of the deep degradation into which this young Republic would sink 
itself, in the eyes of the whole world, should it annex to its own vast territories other 
and foreign territories of immense tliough unknown extent, for the purpose of en- 
couraging the propagation of slavei-y, and promoting the raising of slaves within its 
own bosom — the very bosom of freedom — to be exported and sold in those unhallowed 
regions. Although we are fully aware of these fearful evils, and numberless others 
which would come in their train, yet we do not here dwell upon them, because we are 
firmly convinced that the free People of most, and we trust of all these States, will 
never sutler the admission of the foreign territory of Texas into tliis Union as a con- 
stituent member thereof; will never suffer the integrity of this Republic to be violated, 
either by the introduction and addition to it of foreign nations or territories, one or 
many, or by the dismemberment of it by the transfer of any one or more of its mem- 
bers to a foreign nation. The People will be aware, that, should one foreign State or 
country be introduced, another and another may be, without end, whether situated in 



35 , 

South America, in thp VAest India islands, or in any otiier part of the world , and that 
a single foreign State, thus admitted, might have it in its power, hy holding the balance 
between contending parties, to wrest their own Government from the hands and con 
trol of the People by whom it was established for their own benefit and self-govern- 
ment. We are firmly convinced that the free People of these States will look upon 
any attempt to introduce the foreign territory of Texas, or any other foreign territory 
or nation, into this Union, as a constituent member or members thereof, as manifesting 
a willingness to prostrate the Constitution and dissolve the Union. 

^^ Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested to forward a copy of the 
foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to 
each of the Executives of the several States, with a request that the same may be laid 
before the respective Legislatures of said States. 

"A true copy — witness: 

"HENRY BO WEN, Secrelari/ of State.'' 

[Here an explanation took place between Mr. Adams and Mr. Til- 
LiNGHAST, from wliicli it seemed tliat these resolutions had been pre- 
sented to the House, and by that body ordered to be printed, on the 29tli 
December, 1837.] 

Mr. Adams resumed, and said that, as the e.xamination of this subject 
advanced, there was furnished yet fresher illustration of the evil princi- 
ple that had been recently set up in that body, of treating with contempt 
the declared wishes and will of the People ; which principle had gradu- 
ally e.xtended itself, until it had at length reached the joint resolutions of 
the Legislatures of sovereign States of the Union. He had said that he 
had made the discovery that these resolutions of the State of Rhode 
Island had not, as he had supposed, been printed by the House. Mr. 
TiLLiNGHAST had now shown that the fact was otherwise, and the rea- 
son of his apparent mistake was that, so far as he could find, upon a 
rapid glance, there was no entry on the Journal of the 29th December of 
the presentation of these resolutions. He might have overlooked the 
entry, and was perhaps mistaken in this assertion. The courtesy of 
printing such papers was one that was ever extended to those States 
from which they emanated ; and he liad, the day before, shown from the 
.Journal that, although, under the order of the 21st December, 1837, every 
thing relating to slavery and the slave trade was directed to be laid on 
the table, without reading, printing, or considering, still, from the habit- 
ual respect which was entertained to any expressions of opinion on the 
part of a sovereign State, the Speaker had ordered that the resolutions 
of the Legislature of Vermont to be printed in the body of the Journal. 
How could it, then, happen that these resolutions of another sovereign 
State were not only not printed in the Journal, but, unless he greatly mis- 
took, were not noticed on the Journal as having been presented ? If it 
should appear, on examination, that the fact were so with regard to this 
matter, he hoped that the omission would be supplied, and the true state 
of the case made manifest in the Journal of the present day. But, if he 
was mistaken in this statement, he hoped the Clerk would correct him. 

[The Chair here stated that the Clerk had informed him that the 
entry was made among his minutes, and the assistant clerk was then 
examining the Journal to ascertain whether or not it was entered upon 
the Journal.] 

Mr. Adams trusted that, if it should appear that there had been an 
error in this particular, it might be rectified upon the Journal as of to- 
day. And he made these observations principally because the resolu- 



tions having now been read, and listened to by as many members as 
have been pleased to give attention to ihem, they must have been found 
to contain high and important reasons, whicjj should have conjpelled the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs to read and to consider them, when that 
paper was referred to them for that purpose by the House, And yet he 
supposed no member of that committee could tell what that paper thus 
referred to them contained, inasmuch as an honorable member thereof 
had frankly told the House that he [Mr. Legarb] had not looked into a 
single one of the petitions, memorrals, and resolutions of sovereign State 
authorities which were referred to that committee for consideration. 
Most probably this one had been overlooked. Had the committee con- 
descended to examine it, it seemed to him to be utterly impossible that 
they could have overlooked it, and presented a report like that under 
consideration. Had they been read by its members, these resolutions 
must have had the effect deeply to impress the committee with the strong 
sensation felt by the People of the State of Rhode Island in this subject ; 
and he did hope that, upon a recommitment of it to that committee, they 
would consider it, independently of their former prejudication of it, and 
report candidly and fully with relation to it. 

Mr. A. said, that the rrext in order on the Journal of tire resolutions of 
sovereign State Legislatures, presented to that House, upon this subject, 
were those offered on the 5th of March, 1838, of the Legislature of 
Ohio ; from a section of the coumry different in its interests from the 
other — resolutions in relation to tlie annexation of Texas to this Union^ 
and which are as follows : 

" The subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States having been presented* 
*o the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, by numerous petitions, and by a re- 
port of a committee of one branch of the Legislature, the following resolutions werp 
submitted by said committee for their definite action and concurrence : 

" Resolved bij the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That, in the name and oip 
Tiehalf of the People of the State of Ohio, we do hereby solemnly protest agatnst thf 
annexation of Texas to the Union of these United States. 

' ' And be it further resolved. That the Governor be requested to transmit to cetch of' 
pur Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to the Governors of each of thp 
States, a copy of the foregoing resolution, with a statement of the votes by which ir 
passed in each branch of the Legislature. 

«'C. ANTHONY, 
^'Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
"GEORGE J. SMITH, 

" Speaker of the Senate." 

Mr. Adams therr reverted to the Rhode Island resolutions once more ^ 
stating that it now appeared^ upon examination of the Journal of the 
House, that an entry was made of the fact that, on the 29th of Decem- 
ber, 1837, Mr. TiLLiNOHAST had offered those resolutions, &nd'that they 
were ordered to be printed. But they were not printed, as the Vermonf 
resolutrons had been, on the Journal, 

[The Chair remarked that the resolutions in question haid beeir printerl 
among the documents of the House.] 

Mr. Adams resumed. That was quite another thing from' putting 
fhem upon the Journal — a courtesy always extended to the messages of 
the Executive, and to the resolutions of State Legislatures, as a matter 
of course. And he instanced the protest of the South Carolina Legisla- 
ture against the action of the House upon nullification, and other cases' of 
precedent. But he would leave that subject for the preserst. 



37 

He had been referring )o tlie Ohio resolutions, presented on the 5th of 
March, which had then just been read. There, in that case, the resolutions 
had been entered on the Journal, as read. But there was a fact respect- 
ing them wliich he wished particularly to notice. The closing resolution 
of the series made it the duty of the Governor of the State to transmit to 
the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Ohio, &,c., a copy 
of them, with a statement of the votes by which they were passed in 
each branch of the Legislature. Now, it was perfectly obvious for what 
reason that resolution was introduced : it was to show, in the most au- 
thentic manner, the unanimity with which they passed. The Governor 
had complied with the request contained in this last resolution, and had 
sent the required statement; and the member who had presented the 
resolutions, presented also the letter of the Governor, and asked to have 
it read, as he (Mr. A.) had been informed. 

[Here Mr. Goode rose, and stated that he had offered the resolutions, 
together with the Governor's letter accompanying them ; which he had 
sent to the Chair, with a request that they be read to the House. This 
request had been refused, and he was told that he could only be permit- 
ted briefly to state a summary of the contents of the letter.] 

Mr. Adams resumed. This was only another illustration of the new 
and extraordinary mode in which the petitions of the People, and 
the resolutions of their Legislatures, were treated, under the present 
Administration, in that House. The Representative from Ohio had 
been refused permission to read to the House a short and respectful 
letter from the Governor of that State, acting in pursuance of instruc- 
tions from the Legislature thereof. He would now see whether he should 
or should not be permitted to read that letter. It was then read, as follows : 

"Executive Office, Ohio, 

" Columbus, February 24, 1838. 
*' To the Hon. Mr. Gooue : 

" In compliance with the request contained in the second resolution herewith trans- 
mitted, I send you a certified copy of resolutions passed by the General Assembly ot 
Ohio, protesting against the annexation of Texas to these United States. 

"These resolutions passed the House of Representatives (the whole number of 
which is seventy-two) by a vote of sixty-four in favor, and none against them ; and 
passed the Senate by a vote of thirty-six (the whole number) for, and none against 
them. 

' ' I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

"JOSEPH VANCE." 

That, sir, resumed Mr. A., is the letter from the Governor of Ohio, 
which the Representative of the People of that State was not permitted 
to read here, in his place, to this House; and which was not suffered to 
accompany the resolutions of the Legislature of that State ; a letter 
which not only ought to have been permitted to be read, but ought also 
to have been entered upon the Journal of the House, as a part of the 
proceedings of that Legislature in relation to this matter. But neither 
was done, as he (Mr. A.) had already shown. 

On the 16th of April, (continued Mr. A.,) there were presented to the 
House the joint resolutions of the Legislature of Tennessee, with regard 
to the subject of the annexation of Texas. These were in a somewhat 
different strain froni those which had preceded them from other States, 
and were are follows; 



88 

' Preamble and resolutions in favor of the annexation of Texas to the United States. 

"Whereas we have been anxious and attentive observers of the progress of events in 
Texas, and have not been unmoved spectators of her late gallant and glorious struggle 
for freedom, and have seen that freedom achieved by those near and dear to us by the 
ties of kindred and common ancestry ; and whereas we have seen, by a vote of the 
People of that Republic, an anxious desire manifested to become citizens of these 
United States ; and whereas we believe that the gallant and chivalrous bravery of 
Texians, in their struggle lor liberty and free government, is an assurance of their 
worth, and sufficient evidence of their qualification to entitle them to brotherhood and 
citizenship with us ; and whereas, also, we believe that the annexation of Texas to 
these United States is a 'consummation devoutly to he wished,' and an end worthy 
our best exertions to attain, if it can be done without an infraction of the law of na- 
tions, or a departure from the policy or principles of this Government : 

' ' Now, therefore, resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That 
we desire most anxiously that Texas be acquired by these United States ; and, resolved, 
that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be informed of our desire to ac- 
quire the territory of Texas, and to annex it to the United States, by treaty or pur- 
chase, and at such time as they may deem most expedient. 

♦ ' Resolved, That a copy of this preamble and these resolutions be forwarded by 
the Governor of this State to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, with a 
request that they introduce them to the consideration of both branches of Congress. 

"JOHN COCKE, 
^'Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
"TERRY H. CAHAL, 
^'Speaker of the Senate." 

" Willi a request that they introduce them to the '■consideration'' of 
both branches of Congress." That (said Mr. A.) is the request with 
wliicii these resolutions conclude. And now, he would ask, what be- 
comes of the argument adduced by the gentlemen of the committee, that 
there is no proposition before Congress for the annexation of Texas Jo 
this Union ? It certainly would not be expected, after demonstrations 
of his own upon this subject on that floor, that he should concur in the 
desire, or agree with the requests, of the Legislature of Tennessee, as 
contained in these resolutions. Yet, averse as he was to the principles 
they set up, he still demanded, in the name of that sovereign State, that 
its voice, thus uttered, should be listened to ; and he hoped that the 
Representatives from that State would firmly insist that these resolu- 
tions, and that the Representatives from all the States, the Legislatures 
of which have sent up their resolutions to that House on this subject, 
would also insist that these resolutions, also, should be taken inlo re- 
spectful " consideration" by (hat House. 

Mr. Adams said that he next came to the resolutions of the Legisla- 
ture of the State of Miciiiuan upon this subject. They were as follows : 

"Lkgislatuhf. of Michigan, 

''Detroit, April 3, 1838. 

" Whereas propositions have been made for the annexation of Texas to the United 
States, with a view to its ultimate incorporation into the Union : 

" And whereas the extension of this General Government over so large a country 
on the Southwest, between which and that of the original States there is little affinity, 
and less identity of interests, would tend, in the opinion of this Legislature, greatly to 
disturb the safe and harmonious operations of the Government of the United States, 
and put in imminent danger the continuance of this happy Union : Therefore, 

" Se it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of 
Michigan, That in behalf, and in the name of, the State of Michigan, this Legisla- 
ture doth hereby dissent from, and solemnly protest against, the annexation, for any 
purpose, to this Union, of Texas, or any territory or distiict of country heretofore 



39 

constituting a part of the dominions of Spain in America, lying west or southwest ot 
Louisiana. 

" And be it furtlier resolved by the authority aforesaid, That the Governor of this 
State he requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolve, under the 
great seal of this State, to the President of the United States ; also, that he transmit 
one copy thereof, authenticated in manner aforesaid, to the President of the Senate of 
the United States, with the respectful request of this Legislature that the same may be 
laid before the Senate ; also, that he transmit one copy thereof to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives of the United States, authenticated in like manner, with the 
respectful request of this Legislature that the same may be laid before the House of 
Representatives ; and, also, that he transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives 
in Congress one copy thereof, each, together with the report adopted by this Legisla- 
ture, and which accompanies said preamble and resolves." 

Mr. Adams inquired of the Clerk if these resolutions had been entered 
upon the Journal of the House in their proper place? 

[The Clerk was not prepared at the moment to answer, but would 
examine and ascertain the fact.] 

Mr. Adams proceeded. He said he was aware that the reading and 
commenting on these resolutions might prove tedious to the House ; but 
he hoped honorable members would take into consideration the fact, that 
they had not before been treated with the respect that such papers de- 
served, and, moreover, it was his wish that the Legislatures of these 
different States might know that, though late in the day, their resolutions 
upon this subject had been presented to the House, and that they had 
been read on that floor, and that the Committee on Foreign Affairs had 
come forward with the declaration that they had not thought it worth 
while to look into them ; no, " not into a single one of them," as one of 
the gentlemen of that committee [Mr. Legare] had expressly avowed. 

Mr. Adams then announced that he should next allude to the presenta- 
tion of the legislative resolutions of the State of Alabama, when 

The Chair announced that the hour for morning business had 
elapsed, and 

Mr. Adams suspended his remarks. 

Thursday, June 21, 1838. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texas being again 
under consideration as the unfinished business of the morning hour — 

Mr. Adams rose, and said : When the morning hour expired yester- 
day, I was presenting to the House, as a motive for the recommitment 
of the memorials and resolutions on the subject of the annexation of 
Texas to this Union to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, to whom 
they were formerly committed, but who had not taken them into con- 
sideration, certain resolutions adopted by the Legislatures of several 
States on that subject. I read several of those resolutions, or caused 
them to be read by the Clerk. The necessity of doing this I considered 
as imposed upon myself as a duty, that at least it might appear that those 
resolutions had received some consideration by this House, how little soeve^ 
they might have received from the committee to whom they were sent. 

I had proceeded through the States whose Legislatures had adopted 
resolutions on this subject, until I had come to resolutions of the Legis- 
lature of the State of Alabama, the reading of which closed the consider- 
ation of the matter yesterday morning:. 



40 

Joint preamble and resolutions of the General Assembly of the State of Alabama^ 
ill favor of the annexation of Texas to the United States of America. 

«' The General Assembly of the State of Alabama have witnessed, with feelings of 
deep mortification, the course pursued by a few citizens of the United States in oppo- 
sition to the admission of the Republic of Texas into the Federal Union. 

" Professing, as we ever have, friendship for civil liberty, and a devotion to the boly 
cause of freedom in every clime, it was to have been hoped that no voice would be 
heard among us, to rebuke an application from Texas for admission into this boasted 
asylum from oppression. Our ports have been ever open to the exile or emigrant 
from the eastern hemisphere ; invitations and inducements have been extended to all 
whose interest or inclination led them to our shores ; and no one has ever thought of 
denying comfort and protection to all who have fled from tyranny in that quarter, 
and sought succor and shelter beneath the extended wings of our national eagle. By 
this policy many of the enslaved but worthy and magnanimous sons of Ireland, of 
France, and of Poland, have been enabled to reach our borders, and, ' redeemed, 
regenerated, and disenthralled,' to tread our consecrated soil with the firm and elastic 
step of conscious freedom. With these glaring facts in view, why, it may be de- 
manded, should we reject an overture for similar privileges, coming from the West ? 
Should the circumstance that the Texians come not as mendicants at our feet ; that 
they can bring with them their lands, and habitations, and correct principles, change 
our policy 1 We presume not. It is true that these advantages should not impel us 
to a course different from what we would adopt if they did not exist ; for whatever 
may be the magic influence of interest in ordinary cases, it is admitted that its injunc- 
tions should be powerless on the present occasion. But the circumstance is alluded to 
for the purpose of showing that, although it should weigh but as the dust in the bal- 
ance in determining the present question, yet that it should have as little influence 
against as in favor of the conclusion to which we arrive. And, as far as it can be 
brought to bear upon the question in a constitutional or political point of view, pre- 
cedents are not wanting, if justice could require or yield to precedent, which will sus- 
tain fully the advocates of the annexation of Texas. We refer to the acquisition of 
Louisiana, during the Administration of Mr. Jefferson, and to the still more recent 
annexation of Florida, during the Administration of Mr. Monroe. The inhabitants 
of those countries were not admitted into the Union at their own solicitation, but 
without their formal consent ; they were purchased of their royal and imperial mas- 
ters with our common treasure, and, together with their soil, their religion, their lan- 
guage, their household gods, were brought within the pale of our General Govern- 
ment. How different, in many respects, is the case with the Republic of Texas ! 
Upon the unanimous application of her brave and chivalrous citizens, who may be 
said to be 'bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh,' she seeks, ' without money and 
without price, ' from us, to obtain shelter and protection under the ample folds of our 
federal banner. Is there, in the whole length and breadth of our land, a friend of 
liberty, a lover of justice, or even a mere philanthropist, who can hesitate for one mo- 
ment in the decision of this question ? 

"There are some, it is to be apprehended and regretted, who view this subject alone 
through the dim and deceptive medium of sectional party feelings. We cannot con- 
sent to be influenced by such sordid and circumscribed motives. And such a view is 
the more to be deplored, because of its inevitable tendency to blind the honest, to per- 
vert the innate sympathies of their nature for the worst of purposes, and, by intro- 
ducing extraneous matters into an otherwise simple question, to lead the minds of 
many unsuspecting persons to the contemplation of false issues. For example, many 
well-meaning but misinformed females of some of our sister States, whose hearts are 
thrillingly alive and enthusiastic upon another subject, on false premises, as we know, 
are induced to believe that the present question is identical with that, and that, it 
Texas should be admitted into the Union, all their hopes in favor of universal eman- 
cipation will become, as they really are, the mere waking reveries of their abused or 
distempered imaginations. But were considerations of expediency to become the only 
test on this grave and important question, it is not perceived that such a view of the 
present subject should reverse the policy we propose. Looking to the most exalted 
aim, in a mere point of expediency, which can possess the bosom of an American 
patriot and statesman, the preservation through all time of constitutional union — the 



41 

only permanent palladium of civil liberty and domestic tranquillity — the annexation of 
Texas appears every way desirable to every portion of our country. The solid and 
everlasting foundation on which our political fathers sought to establish justice, to 
insure domestic peace, to form a perfect union of our States, and to perpetuate the 
blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, was a well-regulated balance 
of governmental and territorial power. Since the formation of the Constitution, the 
Northeast, the North, and the Northwest, have increased more rapidly in numerical 
power of States and population than the South and Southwest. It needs but a glance 
at the map to satisfy the most superficial observer that an ove)--ha\&nce is produced by 
the extreme Northeast, which, as regards territory, would be happily corrected and 
co««/er-balanced by the annexation of Texas. And when it is recollected, too, that 
the very territory which it is now proposed to acquire was once within the scope of a 
just claim of our General Government, extending to the Rio del Norte, and that it 
was bartered for a mess of porridge by a prime-mover of the present opposition to its 
reacquisition, there remains no pretext for a subterfuge, under which the adversaries 
of annexation can hope to disguise the covert designs which, there is much reason to 
fear, prompted the exchange of our claims in Texas for the unappropriated portions of 
Florida, consisting mainly of barren sands and poisonous everglades. 

<' It may be apprehended by some that there is danger, in negotiating with Texas on 
this subject, of involving our General Government in a conflict of arms with Mexico. 
We cannot perceive how it is possible, upon correct principles, that such a result can 
ensue ; and we presume every patriot who entertains a proper respect for himself and 
his country will be ready to exclaim that, however much such a conflict is, at all 
times, to be regretted, yet, if it should be urged upon us, contrary to the eternal prin- 
ciples of right and justice, let it come ! let it come ! 

"But it may not be amiss to examine, for a moment, on what foundation such ap- 
prehensions repiose. Texas is not only independent by declaration, but she is sove- 
reign and independent in substance and in fact ; and, as far as can be judged from her 
past history or present condition, and the quiescent course of Mexico towards her for 
the last twenty months, there exists not the slighest ground to fear that her independ- 
ence is not permanent. Is there any substantial reason, then, why we should not 
treat with the Republic of Texas as a sovereign and independent nation of the earth 1 
Should we delicately consult the mere stubbornness of Mexico in this matter ? Must 
we stand as idle spectators of her froward imitation of Old Spain, in refusing to rec- 
ognise the independence of her revolted colonies, lest she visit upon us the vengeance 
which she has attempted in vain to inflict upon Texas 1 If this be a duty of neu- 
trality, then it appears clear that an equal obligation exists to refrain from any nego- 
tiation with a revolted colony until the mother country acknowledges her independ- 
ence. Such a course, however, is contrary to the invariable custom of nations. 
Indeed, the previous course of our own Government, under almost precisely similar 
circumstances, has been in accordance with the course for which we contend. Before 
Spain had recognised the independence of Mexico herself, and while the latter was 
far from settled in the exercise of her assumed sovereignty, a negotiation for the pur- 
chase of her territory to the Rio del Norte was urged upon her through Mr. Clay, 
then Secretary of State, under the Administration of the younger Adams. Wliere 
then were the constitutional objections to the annexation of Texas ? The same poli- 
cy was pursued and brought almost to consummation under the Administration of 
President Jackson. Wherefore now such extreme delicacy on the subject of our for- 
eign relations T 

" But as it is upon the substance of this important subject that we desire to be dis- 
tinctly understood at present; therefore, 

" 1 . Beit resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Ala- 
bama in General Assembh/ convened. That the overture on the part of the Republic 
of Texas, for annexation to the United States of America, ought to be met by the 
federal authorities in the most friendly manner, and should be accepted as soon as 
it can be done without a violation of our honor as a nation, or any principle of inter- 
national law. 

"2. And be it further resolved. That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and 
our Representatives requested, to urge and sustain the foregoing views on all proper 
occasions. 

"3. And be it further resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested. 



42 

transmit, as early as practicable, a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to 
each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, a copy to the Governor of each 
State of the Union, with a request that it be laid before the Legislature of his State, 
and a copy to the President of the United States." 

Tl/e observations I shall think it proper to make on these resolutions 
mav with propriety be preceded by an explanation of some expressions 
1 employed on the preceding day, which, as I have since learned, were 
not fully understood. 

1 stated, when speaking of the manner in which the memorials, peti- 
tions, and resolutions on the subject of Texas h;id been treated, that the 
Committee on Foreign Aflairs was not the committee to which I should 
have been desirous that they should be referred ; and in assigning the 
reasons why 1 did not wish them sent to this committee — the most im- 
portant committee of this House — and for every member of which I have 
great personal respect, I stated that it was in consequence of the compo- 
sition of that committee, in both points of view, both as to the sectional 
question of party as between the North and the South, and also as 
between the Administration and the Opposition. And in reference to 
the second branch of the observation, I said that the committee contained 
" sr£ and a half'' members who were to be considered as friends of the 
Administration, and the remainder were supposed to belong to the Op- 
position. I have understood since that some of the members of the 
House had doubts as to what was intended by the expression " six and 
a half," as thus applied. 

I will now state, by way of explanation, that I considered six of the 
members of that committee as what I should call devoted friends of the 
Administration — as toe-the-mark gentlemen — gentlemen who considered 
that obedience, implicit obedience to what are called in certain quarters 
the " usages of the democratic paity," required the sacrifice, on almost 
every occasion, of their own private and personal opinions to the views 
and opinions and purposes of a majority of this House. 

But the committee contained one member [Mr. Legare] who consid- 
ered himself, and was considered by his friends, and, I believe, by the 
House generally, as a friend and supporter of the Administration in gene- 
ral cases, but as possessing and professing a personal independence of 
spirit, which left him at liberty to oppose the Administration on some of 
the most important questions which are ever presented to this House. 
That was what 1 meant by saying that there were six and a half friends 
of the Administration on that committee — nothing more and nothing less. 
I referred to the personal disposition of one member as to party and 
parly questions coming before tliis House. As to the other members of 
the committee, I do not know but my estimate may be in some degree 
incorrect. There is another member I have classed as among the de- 
voted friends of the Administration and faithful to the usages of the de- 
mocratic party, but who, it is possible, may not be willing to avow him- 
self so far a party man ; and possibly I may be justified in referring to 
that gentleman on this particular question : I mean the Representative 
from Michigan, [Mr. Crary.] I say on this question, because the Le- 
gislature of Michigan is one of those which have protested against the 
admission of Texas into this Union. I do not know but that every vote 
he has at any time given, having any bearing on this subject, has been 
strictly in conformity with the views expressed by the Legislature of his 



43 

own State. If so, he can explain for himself, and stale his own views, 
and let the House and the country know how far he does agree with the 
Legislature of his State. Because I have, by an inference which, per- 
haps, will not be admitted by all the members of this House, considered 
the annexation of Texas as being, and as intended to be, an Administra- 
tion measure, I trust, before 1 release the House from the tedious task I 
am at this moment inflicting upon it, tiiai I shall assign some reasons for 
this inference. I say that it is strictly an Administration measure, in- 
tended so to be, so that, should public opinion ever favor it, the Admin- 
istration may take advantage of the fact. If the Representative Irom 
Michigan agrees in views with the Legislature of his own State, I shall 
be happy to hear him say so, and to say it explicitly. And, would to 
Heaven I had the privilege of polling every member of the House at this 
moment on that subject! Then there would be none of this obfuscaiion, 
of this mystification, which must ever continue as long as the House closes 
its doors against all discussion of the subject. I shall be happy to hear 
the Delegate from Michigan declare his political creed, and that as clear- 
ly, as explicitly, as earnestly as the Legislature has done of that State 
whose People he represents on this floor. 

I was considering the great importance of the resolutions of the State 
Legislatures; and in what I said I had reference as well to the resolu- 
tions of States which desire the annexation as of those who are opposed 
to it. Of Legislatures of this description there are three, I think. The 
first I shall notice is the Legislature of Alabama. She has advanced a 
number of considerations deserving of the fullest attention, examination, 
and scrutiny, and of refutation, so far as they are capable of being re- 
futed. To do so would, in my opinion, be among the duties of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Aflfairs ; and will be of any committee to which the 
resolutions, memorials, and petitions on the general subject may be re- 
ferred. For I do not disguise to myself the desperate condition of the 
resolution of my colleague, [Mr. Gushing,] after what has taken place in 
this House. But I beg members of this House to consider that if they 
shall ultimately — as I suppose they will — cut short this discussion by 
calling the previous question, or by laying it on the table, they will not 
thereby escape the same question at the next session. If I shall have 
being and breath, I here promise them that the question shall be brought 
up again ; whether it will be under more favorable auspices is for time 
alone to disclose. I do not think it possible that even this Congress can 
persevere in closing its doors against all discussion. I do not, cannot 
think that is possible. But if this Congress do so, and if, after seeing 
what the teeling of the People of the United States is respecting the gag 
they have put on this House, and on their own mouths, that act shall by 
them be repeated, I entertain the hope that another Congress is at no great 
distance, when we shall hear nothing of the gag, or of a resolution first to 
receive, and then not lo consider, but to lay on the table, memorials or 
petitions from the People on any subject whatever. There is a reform 
for the People of the United States lo effect. I thank Heaven there is 
reason to conclude they are seriously thinking of it at this time. 

I will spare the House fron» reading and commenting at length upon 
the arguments in the preamble of the resolutions from Alabama. I will 
send only one short passage to the Clerk's table, which I will thank him 



44 

to read. The House, on hearing it, will perceive that I have, myself, 
an interest in a fair and free discussion of this resolution. 

[The extract was read, as follows:] 

" And when it is recollected, too, that the very territory which it is now proposed 
to acquire was once within the scope of a just claim of our General Government, ex- 
tending to the Rio del Norte, and that it was bartered for a mess of porridge by a 
prime-mover of the present opposition to its reacquisition, there remains no pretext 
for a subterfuge, under which the adversaries of annexation can hope to disguise the 
covert designs which, there is much reason to fear, prompted the exchange of our 
claims in Texas for the unappropriated portions of Florida, consisting mainly of bar- 
ren sands and poisonous everglades." 

Sir, there is a part of that paragraph which, when the subject comes 
up, I must turn over to the respectable gentleman, the Delegate from 
Florida. I hope he will feel himself called upon, for the honor of the 
Territory he so ably represents here, to vindicate it a little, so far, at 
least, as to show that it does not consist of " barren sands and poisonous 
everglades." 

But there is another point here introduced, on which 1, as an individ- 
ual, may fairly claim the right of discussion in this House, in a docu- 
naent submitted to the House under the authority of the Legislature of a 
sovereign State, and pointing to an individual in whom I cannot forbear 
to recognise myself. (If the passage is not so understood by the mem- 
bers of the House, it shows that I have been in a great error.) I am 
here represented by an act of a Legislature which I respect, as I do 
every one of the members of this great and mighty Confederacy, and 
whose members on this floor, every one of them, I respect personally 
and politically ; and I consider myself as having a right to call on this 
House to permit me to vindicate myself from a charge of so serious a 
character — no less than that of having bartered for a mess of porridge a 
territory of high value to all, and to which we are represented as having 
had a fair and just claim. It is not my intention to enter into the subject 
now : it would occupy too much time : and some may already consider 
me as abusing the indulgence of the House. I shall enter into no discus- 
sion which is not necessary for the full knowledge and elucidation of the 
subject. Sir, this charge is not a new one in this House. It was made 
here two years ago by an honorable gentleman from South Carolina, and, 
on a brief explanation I at that time gave, he professed himself to be 
entirely satisfied. I thank him for the liberality of his concession made 
on so brief an explanation. 

[Mr. Waddy Thompson here explained, and said that he never had 
advanced any " charge''' on this subject against the honorable gentle- 
man from Massachusetts, but had said that others did. It would be 
criminal in me to hesitate to admit that he acted throughout that matter 
both as a statesman and an enlightened patriot.] 

I thank the gentleman for his ready and frank admission ; but, sir, 
there is a long story connected with this matter, and now, though it is 
two years since the charge was fully refuted, it appears before this House 
in an act of a Legislature of a sovereign State, and it is presented as one 
of many strong motives here urged to induce the People of the United 
States to consent to the annexation of Texas. I will not discuss it now. 
But at a proper time I hope to be permitted to show that I never did 
consent to barter away this or any other right of the People of the United 



45 

States for an alleged equivalent of inferior value , but, on the contrary^ 
that this very claim which the Legislature of Alabama thinks so just and 
fair, and which the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. ThompsonI 
still continues to think a just claim, and which has been so laid down in 
another place, as if the matter did not admit of dispute, is as flimsy a claim 
as evvr was set up by one nation against another. Tliis I am prepared to 
show. It was no right. It was a claim. It was a claim of all the terri- 
tory to the Rio del Norte, when, in fact, there never had been a division 
of that territory, or an adjustment of that claim with another and much 
better authenticated adverse claim of Spain. On what ground is the 
accusation brought against me of bartering away this territory for a mess 
of porridge ? What pretence is there for such an accusation, when I 
was but the scribe, but the pen in the hand of the President in an Admin- 
istration in which there were two thirds of its number from that portion 
of the Union which now manifests so strong an interest in behalf of the 
annexation of Texas to this Union? When every line and every sen- 
tence of the treaty was sanctioned by that Cabinet, and when every 
Senator of the United States, from North, South, East, and West, con- 
firmed it by his vote, and not a voice was raised against it. The senti- 
ment was unanimous in the Senate, and it became equally unanimous 
throughout the Union, that the treaty was one of the most favorable ones 
for us which ever had been concluded since the United States became 
a nation. I hope the time will come when I shall have an opportunity 
nf presenting such a demonstration of this as shall leave no doubting 
mind, not even in Alabama. 

While I am on this subject, I feel justified in referring to another docu- 
ment, a call for which was, b}' the great courtesy of this House, denied 
to me ; I mean a report of a committee of the House of Representative,^ 
of the State of Mississippi, to which our attention was invited in an Ex- 
ecuMve message, but which paper was not communicated to this House, 
as, in my opinion, it ought to have been at the time. In that report, 
(and I have seen it,) this same charge is made, and with much greater 
aggravation than in these resolutions of the Legislature of Alabama. I did 
hope that I should have had an opportunity before this House, before my 
country, and before God, to bring those charges to the test, and to show 
whether or not they had any foundation. 

I pass that now, and come to the last of the State resolutions, which 
are those of my native State of Massachusetts: 

" CoMMO^■WEAI.TH OF MaSSACHI' SETTS, 1838. 

" Resoh-es against the annexation of Texas to the United States. 
" Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States, as a constituent member 
Uiereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been recommended by the legislative resolu- 
tions of several States, and brought before Congress for its approval and sanction - 
and whereas such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be 
of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to the character of this 
countrj-: and whereas its avowed objects are doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity 
and permanency of this Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of 
those compromises and concessions entered into at the formation of the Constitution, 
by which the relative weight of different sections and interests was adjusted, and to 
strengthen and extend the evils of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking con- 
trast with the theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of 
mankind : and whereas the People of these United States have not granted to any or 



46 

all of the deparimpnts of their Government, but have retanied in themselves., the only 
power adequate to the admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy : therefore, 

"Resolved, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court 
assembled, do, in the name of the People of Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly 
protest against the incorporation of Texas into this Union ; and declare that no act 
done, or compact made, for such purpose, by the Government of the United States, 
will be binding on the States or the People. 

" Retiolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested to forward a copy of 
these resolves, and the accompanying report, to the Executive of the United States, 
and the Executive of each State ; and also to each of our Senators and Representa- 
tives in Congress, with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of 
Congress." 

It will be observeil that the last of these resolutions is an instruction 
to her Senators and a request to her Representatives to present these 
resoUitions in both Houses. Now, asjain, I ask, is it possible that t!ie 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will attempt to justify his 
conimittee in not taking these resolutions into consideration, and not re- 
porting upon them, on the ground that there exists no proposition for 
the annexation? In the resolutions of the other States there is a propo- 
sition, a direct proposition. Surely it will not be said, when any peti- 
tions or meniorials from private individuals are referred to a committee, 
that the committee may refuse to report upon them " because there is 
no proposition on the subject before the House." Here is a direct 
counter proposition to the proposition of those States whose resolves call 
for the annexation. I again entreat the members of this House to read 
the resolutions for and against that measure, and to put it to their con- 
sciences whether they can refuse to take those propositions into con- 
sideration, and whether they can justify the Committee on Foreign 
Afifairs in makine: a report upon the resolutions without ever looking into 
them. I entreat this as a chaige of duty on the conscience of e\ery 
member of this House. 

The resolutions of Massachusetts were presented on tiie 21st of May 
by my colleague, [Mr. Briggs.] Then, for the first lime, the House did 
deliberately refer the resolutions of a Slate Legislature to the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs. This was no inadvertence; it was done de- 
!il)eratelv, on .^ formal motion made b\' myself. A gentleman from 
Georu;ia [Mr. Havnes] had objected to the motion, but withdrew his 
objection, and the House then referred the resolutions. Tiiey were re- 
ferred as ;< mark of respect, for which 1, as one of her Representatives, 
felt grateful. Little did I exfiect that the comtnittee would turn them 
back on this House with th(^ declaration that they never looked into 
ihem, or with a denial of my right to ask whether they had considered 
them or not. They were deliberately, I will say solemnly, referred to 
that committee. 

Then, four days after, all the resolutions of State Legislatures, and all 
the memorials, petitions, and remonstrances of individual citizens on the 
same subject, were again referred to that committee. 

I have the opportunity, in referring to the resolutions of my native 
Commonwealth, of noting some reference to this subject, and particu- 
larly to the agency I had in this House and in this country in regard to 
it, which was made in the Legislature of Texas. I hold in my hand 
the report of proceedings in that Legislature, of a very recent date. It 
records that a joint resolution was introduced into ihat body for the 



47 

withdrawal of tlie application on the part of Texas to be admitted into 
the United States, which was founded on the reception here of that 
application, and the opposition to it manifested by the People of this 
country. 

[Mr. A. here read from the report the vote on t!)e joint rcsoUition re- 
ferred to, as follows:] 

"ANNEXATION. 

" The joint resolution to withdraw the proposition for annexation was taken up, 
the House being agreed to reconsider the vote of yesterday upon that subject. After 
some amendments the votes were again taken on the resolution, which was lost. 

"Axes — Messrs. Brennan, Douglass, Gazley, Gant, Jones, of Brazoria, Jack, 
.Menifee, Patton, Ponton, Rusk, Rowlett, Thompson, and Thornton — 13. 

"Noes — Messrs. Speaker Branch, Burleson, Billingsly, Boyd, Griggsby, Harde- 
man, Hill, Linn, McKinney, Pierpont, Sutherland, Swift, Wyatt — 14." 

There is the vote, sir. Ayes 13, noes 14. So, by a majority of one 
member of the House of Representatives of Texas, that body has refu- 
sed to withdraw its application for annexation to this Union. Here I 
nuist be permitted to observe, that there is in this newspaper publication 
more explicitness and candor than I was able, or than this House was 
able, to.obtain from the President of the United States. I offered a res- 
olution calling on the President, if it were not incompatible with the 
public welfare, to inform us whether that application had or had not 
been withdrawn. In answer to this call we had a letter from the Presi- 
dent, referring us to an enclosed letter of the Secretary of State ; which 
letter of the Secretary I here recommend as one of the completest 
specimens of mystification ever sent to this House. It does not say 
whether the application has been withdrawn or has not been withdrawn. 
The substance of it is, that, after the rejection of the first proposition, 
made by the Plenipotentiary of Texas, the Executive (xovernment 
thought the subject beyond its control. That was not the question 
asked. The question was not about their thoughts ; but whether the 
proposition for the annexation of Texas to this Union had or had not 
been withdrawn. It was the act of a foreign Government about which 
we inquired, and not into the opinions, clearer muddy, of the Executive 
Government ; whether they considered the subject as within their con- 
trol or without their control. It has been said of the People of the 
part of the Union from which I come, that you cannot get a direct an- 
swer from them to a plain question of fact; surely, then, we must have 
a Yankee Secretary of State, for it seems we cannot get any direct an- 
swer from him. But, though we cannot get the answer from him, here 
it is. The proposition has not been withdrawn. It is still in existence. 
And I will ask the patience of the House a little longer while I read to 
them some of the reasons assigned in the Texas Legislature for and 
against the resolution to withdraw it. 

[Mr. A. here quoted debates in Texas, as follows :] 

" Before the votes were taken, several gentlemen proceeded to express their views 
upon the subject. 

" Mr. Jones read extiacts of a letter from our Minister at the Court of St. James, 
setting forth the friendly feeling on the part of the British Government towards this 
Republic, whose ability, however, to maintain her independence, the letter observed, 
was doubted in England. With regard to the United States, the question of annex- 
ation was there considered as involving a war with Mexico, and was consequently 
hopeless." 



48 

Here they say that, owing to the danger of a war with Mexico, the an- 
nexation is " hopeless;" just what the Secretary of State told the Tex- 
san minister, and just what the chairman of the committee told this House. 
The inference I draw from this language is, that, were it not for fear of 
a war with Mexico, the measure would not he " hopeless." 

Mr. Cambreleng here inquired of the Chair whether the morning 
liour had not expired 1 

The Chair replied that it had. 

Mr. A, entreated for sufficient time to read through the report of these 
Texian debates. By general consent, the leave was given, and Mr. A. 
proceeded : 

" England was interested in severing Texas from Mexico, but would never recog- 
nise our independence so long as we continued to request annexation to the United 
States." 

From this, said Mr. A., it appears that England has been too wise to 
recognise the independence of Texas so long as her application contin- 
ues for admission into our Union. 

Mr. A. read on : 

" There were interests, too, in the United States that clashed with our own. Here 
Mr. Jones read several passages of a speech hy the honorable John Quincy Adams, 
Upon the subject of the annexation of Texas to the United States, to show the feeling 
upon the subject in the States north of the Potomac. 

" Mr. Rusk was in favor of an immediate withdrawal of the proposition for annex- 
ation. Even were the scheme desirable, it was impracticable. The benefits, too, would 
?J1 be on the side of the United States." 

This last assertion caused him some merriment. He continued to read, 
where the Texian orator was saying that '* to the People of tlie United 
States Texas owed much, to the Government nothing." How that may 
be, said Mr. A., I leave as a question between Texas and the Admin- 
Estration. 

He proceeds : 

"A large propoition of tlie People, however, opposed the annexation of Texas to 
their coimtry : it would give strength to the South, and that was what they were 
tletermined the South should not have. Self-respect required of us to lose no time in 
withdrawing a hopeless proposition ; let us stand or fall upon our own merits. Even 
»f we were willing to give to the United States all the advantages of the contract, she 
would not receive us. The matter, as it now stood, operated unfavorably to us with 
regard to England, who, if she once saw that wc were to stand upon independent 
ground, would be led by her interests to cultivate our friendship, and would, at once, 
recognise our independence. On every view of the subject that could be taken, it was 
iiighly desirable that we at once withdraw the proposition for annexation. 

" Mr. Gant concurred with Mr. Rusk in most of his arguments. 

«' Mr. Hill doubted the right of Congress to withdraw the proposition. The Peo- 
ple had directed it lo be made, and would, if necessary, direct it to be withdrawn." 

This Mr. Hill seems a very sensible gentleman ; his speech certainly 
r.ontains a great deal of sound sense. He expressed a doubt whether the 
Government of Texas was authorized to withdraw its application to us 
for annexation. His doctrine is, that that withdrawal can be made only 
by the People of Texas. 

Mr. A. here again read on : 

' ' Mr. Thompson contended for the right of Congress to withdraw the proposition, 
which he thought ought to be withdrawn. 

" Mr. Branch was in favor of annexation. A large portion of the People of the 
United States were also in favor of it. 



49 

" Mr. Swift rose and observed that he felt it incumbent upon him to assign his rea- 
sons for the vote he was about to give. He could not view the fact as to the United 
States Government abstaining at this time from any action on our proposition of an- 
nexation, as closing the door finally against all action on the subject. So far as his 
(Mr. Swift's) constituents were concerned, it was due to them to say that they were in 
favor of annexation to the United States. The House had heard it gravely maintained, 
that one of the Representatives from the State of Massachusetts (Mr. John Quincy 
Adams) was at the head of a crusade pledged to the overthrow of certain institutions 
among us. If this be so, said Mr. S., that leader cannot at all events boast of many 
followers. His (Mr. Adams's) own State distinctly disapproved of the course upon that 
explosive subject. The criterion, then, by which it had been sought to judge of the 
sentiments of the People of Massachusetts upon the subject in question, was, to say 
the least, no criterion at all. He (Mr. S. ) had recently received a letter from Massa- 
chusetts, stating the fact, that the course pursued by Mr. Adams, in relation to slavery, 
had failed to receive the sanction even of his immediate constituents. Of the delega- 
tion from Massachusetts, Mr. Adams had, perhaps, three out of twelve with him 
upon that subject. In a public meeting held not long since at Faneuil Hall, Boston, 
whose walls had been accustomed to echo the plaudits with which a brave and patri- 
otic People were wont to greet the eloquent and spirit-stirring appeals of the sages and 
freemen of Massachusetts — at a public meeting held in that memorable hall, the citi- 
zens of Massachusetts had passed sentence of condemnation upon Mr. Adams and those 
who acted with him." 

Here, sir, is a gentleman in this Legislature of Texas, alleging that my 
course has been disapproved of by my own Stale. My course in resist- 
ing the annexation solemnly disapproved of by my own State ! Indeed ! 
What then do these resolutions mean which have been sent here by her 
Legislature 1 

Again he informs that body that I am supported by three out of the 
twelve Rcpiesentatives, my colleagues from Massachusetts. Sir, 1 should 
very much like to know who are tiie three Massachusetts Representatives 
who agree with me in opinion on this matter, and who are the eight who 
disagree. He says there was a public meeting held in Fanueil Hall, the 
cradle of American liberty, (and so it was,) when my course in relation 
(0 slavery — (ah! sir, to slavery, not to Texas; you see he cunningly 
shifts the issue) — in relation to slavery was publicly and solemnly con- 
demned. Now, when my colleagues have done me the honor to inform 
this House who are the three and who the eight, for and against my 
course in relation to Texas, I hope they will further inform me, and in- 
form this House, when it was that a meeting in Fanueil Hall solemnly 
condemned my course either as to slavery, or as to the annexation of 
Texas to the Union. 

Mr. A. again read on : 

•' Let us not be deceived, then, as to the opinions of the People of the North upon 
this subject. With regard to the subject of annexation, Mr. Swift said he felt bound 
to vote in accordance with the known wishes of his constituents, who were opposed to 
the withdrawal of the proposition. There was another reason, of some importance, 
that had a bearing on the question. The withdrawal of the proposition would crush 
the hopes of thousands of emigrants from the United States who were daily pouring in 
upon our shores, buoyed up by the anticipations of a speedy union of this country 
with the one they had left. Whence, in any future time of need, are we to look for 
that aid which had already enabled us to roll back the tide of Mexican invasion, and 
hold out defiance to the tyrant of the West 1 Will it come from England ? Will Eng- 
land marshal her chivalry upon our prairies, or open her thunders upon the Gulf, in 
response to our call 1 No I To the People of the United States are we indebted for 
what we have achieved, and for being what we now are. Let them not come among 
us, then, only to listen to slanders upon themselves and the gallant men they have left 
4 



50 

behind them — let them not have cause to exclaim, ' Ingratitude, thou niarble-heartec? 
fiend !' " 

Mr. Harlan, of Kentucky, here demanded the orders of the day, and 
Mr. A. resumed his seat, 

Friday, June 22, 1838. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texas being again 
under consideration as the unfinished business of the morning hour — 

Mr. Adams said that, at the expiration of the morning hour on the 
preceding day, he had been interrupted while engaged in reading por- 
tions of a debate in the Legislature of Texas upon the subject of the 
annexation of that Republic to this. He had done this in connexion 
with the memorials and resolutions of the different Legislatures which 
had acted upon this subject ; they were illustrative one of the other. 
He had nearly finished the reading of the debate, when the arrival of 
the hour to take up the orders of the day had put a peremptory end to 
his remarks for that time. He had been reading particularly from the 
reported remarks of a member of the Texian Legislature, by the name 
of Swift : the subject in discussion being the proposition to withdraw 
the application for admission to this Union ; and he, the speaker, being 
opposed to that proposition. This member had made much allusion, in 
the course of this speech, to himself, (Mr. A.,) and to his previous ac- 
tion on the subject of the annexation, and, among other things, had sta- 
ted that he (Mr. A.) was not sustained by his colleagues in that course 
of action upon that floor, nor by the great mass of his immediate con- 
stituents. Mr. Swift had said : 

"The House had heard it gravely maintained that one of the Representatives froire 
the State of Massachusetts (Mr. J. Quincy Adams) was at the head of a crusade 
pledged to the overthrow of certain institutions among us. If this be so, said Mr. 
S., that leader cannot, at all events, boast of many followers. His (Mr. Adams's) 
own State distinctly disapproved of his course upon that subject. The criterion, 
then, by which it had been sought to judge of the sentiments of the People of Massa- 
chusetts, upon the subject in question, was, to say the least, no criterion at all. He 
(Mr. S.) had recently received a letter from Massachusetts, stating the fact, 
{hat the course pursued by Mr. Adams, in relation to slavery, had failed to 
receive the sanction even of his immediate constituents. Of the delegation 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Adams had perhaps three out of twelve with him, 
upon that subject. In a public meeting, held not long since at Faneuil Hall, Boston, 
whose walls had been accustomed to echo the plaudits with which a brave and patri- 
otic People were wont to greet the eloquent and spirit-stirring appeals of the sages and 
freemen of Massachusetts — at a public meeting held in that memorable hall, the citi- 
zens of Massachusetts had passed sentence of condemnation upon Mr. Adams and 
those who acted with him. 

" Let us not be deceived, then, as to the opinions of the People of the North upon 
this subject." 

Mr. Adams resumed his lemarks, and observed that although this 
authority did not seem very powerful as to the wishes and opinions of 
the People of the United States on this subjectj it was still useful as 
showing to the country what were its actual relations to tiie Republic of 
Texas, especially so far as those relations were connected with those of 
Mexico and the United States ; and yet more particularly, when this 
>iation is in some danger of war with another country, and this Govern- 
ment is called on to enact laws for restricting its own citizens from giv- 
ing aid to foreign rebels in its own borders. 



51 

" With regard to the subject of annexation, Mr. Swift said he felt bound to vote 
in accordance with the known wishes of his constituents, who were opposed to the 
withdrawal of the proposition. There was another reason, of some importance, that 
had a bearing on the question. The withdrawal of the proposition would crush the 
hopes of thousands of emigrants from the United Slates who were daily pouring in 
upon our shores, buoyed up by the anticipations of a speedy union of this country with 
the one they had left. Whence, in any future time of need, are we to look for that 
aid which had already enabled us to roll back the tide of Mexican invasion, and hold 
out defiance to the tyrant of the West 1 Will it come from England 1 Will Eng- 
land marshal her chivalry upon our prairies, or open her thunders upon the Gulf, in 
response to our call 1 No ! To the People of the United States we are indebted for 
what we have achieved, and for being what we now are," &c. 

Now, manifestly, as it was the wish and desire of the chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs that the annexation should be accom- 
plished, yet it could not but have been anticipated that that committee 
would have thought the subject one worthy of its consideration. The 
fact was, that committee were in favor of the consummation of the thing. 
The rules and orders of the House made it their bounden duty to report 
on it : and it was equally their duty to inquire into the principle of the 
right of any department of this Government to consummate such a pro- 
ject as the annexation of a foreign People to this Union, without the ex- 
press sanction of the People of this Union themselves. In his (Mr. A's) 
opinion it was a paramount duty to look into the resolutions and memo- 
rials submitted to the committee, to see whether or not such a principle 
was contained therein, and to report thereon. The nation had a right 
to know the opinions of the House on this question ; and the House had 
a right to demand the opinions of the committee thereon, in order to 
discuss and to settle it properly. 

Besides the seven Legislatures, whose proceedings upon this subject 
had been laid before the House, Mr. A. said there were yet others which 
have acted, slthough not decisively, with regard to it. Even in the 
very paper from which he had been reading a report of the debate in the 
Texian Legislature, and which he still held in his hand, there was a 
statement of a transaction in the House of Assembly of the State of 
New York upon this subject. The paragraph was as follows : 

"The Assembly of the State of New York, by a vote of 80 to 13, [only about 
seven to one, Mr. Speaker, said Mr. Adams, of the Representatives of 'the empire 
State,' 'fresh as possible from the People,'] have adopted the following resolution ; 

"Resolved, That the admission of the Republic of Texas into the Union would be 
entirely repugnant to the will of the People of this State, and would endanger the 
union of these United States." 

And what (continued Mr. Adams) is the Texian commentary on this 
resolution 1 Hear it : 

" We little thought the empire Stale would be found taking the lead with the abo- 
litionists.'" 

Another repetition (said Mr. Adam.s) of those artful attempts which 
have been made in various quarters to represent that portion of the Peo- 
ple of this country opposed to the annexation of Texas as being identi- 
cal with abolitionists. 

" When, true to her great name, she so nobly cas^t from her bosom that foul off- 
spring of ignorance and bigotry, political anti-masonry, we fully believed that a new 
and bright career was opened before her." 



52 

Sir, (said Mr. A.,) I recommend this passage to my friends and co- 
anti-masons ; for, sir, having been one of that party myself, I cannot 
but take this as one of the greatest compliments ever paid to it from any 
quarter. 

" But when we behold her again bowing her proud head, and yielding herself up to 
the vile influence of the most despicable and degrading of political crimes — abolitionism — 
we cannot but look upon her with mingled feelings of abhorrence and regret." 

Hear that, (said Mr. Adams,) Representatives of the State of New 
\ork ! Bow, bow subniissively to the burden of Texian abhorrence 
which has so calamitously been cast upon you ! 

* ' And fear that she is sinking into an abyss of odium, from which even the bright 
names of her Clintons, her Fultons, and her Livingstons, can never rescue her." 

That, sir, (said Mr. Adams,) is Texian morality. These, sir, are 
Texian politics ! And on whom are they herein brought to bear 1 On 
the Representatives of the People, freshly chosen, to sit in the General 
Assembly of the empire State of New York, in the proportion of 80 
to 13! 

Now, Mr. A. did not doubt but that information might have been trans- 
mitted from the city of New York to some of the members of the Tex- 
ian Legislature, informing them that the State was not opposed to the 
annexation, and that her Representatives were, seven to one, abolition- 
ists ; that was very probable. And the editor of the Houston Telegraph 
might have made up his opinions from such information. Nothing more 
likely. But the result of the whole matter was this : it was emphati- 
cally the duty of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to consider deliber- 
ately, and report decisively, upon the feeling existing in the country 
upon this question, Noith and South, as well in the State of New York 
as in that of Alabama, or any Southern State. Thus the question 
would have been brought properly and palpably before the House, and 
then it could have been ascertained " who was for the Lord, and who 
was for Baal ;" who was for the annexation of Texas, and who for 
the purity of the Union; when an opportunity would have been allowed 
to some of the Representatives on that floor from the denounced State of 
New York to show themselves more true to their country than to their 
party, and thus to maintain here the declared will of their constituents, 
that they desire no connexion with this " great and glorious" slavery- 
restoring Republic of Texas, Mr. Adams said that he still hoped 
that such a vote, by yeas and nays, might yet be taken in that 
House. And it was this hope that, to his mind, afforded strong rea- 
sons for wishing the whole subject to be referred to a committee, that 
would bring in an argumentative report upon it, and in which the rea- 
sons, ]:>ro and con,^ should be stated at large by the committee- He be- 
lieved that the resolution which he had been commenting on had been 
checked and defeated in the Senate, after so triumphant a passage by 
the Assembly, by the friends of the National Administration — " the 
Northern Administration with Southern principles," as it had been 
called. It was stopped by them, contrary to the deliberately declared 
will of four fifths of the People of New York, of that " democracy of 
numbers," of v^'hich so much had been said by certain political leaders; 
and this, for fear that its passage might disagreeably affect the popularity 
of the head? of that Administration. If he was in error in this suppo- 



53 

sition, he should no doubt be corrected by some of the delegation from 
that State in the House. 

A similar opposition had manifested itself in Pennsylvania. With 
regard to the question of annexation in the Legislature of that State, he 
had, however, no official documents before him. But he felt warranted 
in the supposition that the same influences were at work, operating there, 
as in the Legislature of New York, A gentleman from that State, near 
me, said Mr. A., [Mr. Potter,] shakes his head. Do I understand by 
that that the portion of the Pennsylvania Legislature who passed the 
resolutions with regard to Texas were unfriendly to the present National 
Administration 1 

[Mr. Potter here rose, and remarked that the majority in the House 
of Representatives of Pennsylvania were hostile to the Administration. 
Why the resolution in question was not acted on by the Senate of that 
State, he was entirely unable to say,] 

Wei!, then, resumed Mr. Adams, in the absence of certain informa- 
tion upon the subject, he would leave Pennsylvania where she had left 
herself; but he still trusted the day was not far distant when the People 
of that State would express themselves through their Representatives 
with relation to this subject, as clearly and decidedly as those of New 
York had done. For he did not in the least doubt that the non-action of 
the Senate, as well as the action of the House of Representatives of 
Pennsylvania, upon the occasion alluded to, did not express the real 
sentiments of the People of that State ; nor did he doubt that, had this 
♦been faithfully done, tlie sentiments of the People of that State would 
have been found identical with those of the People of the State of New 
York upon this important question. 

Mr. A. next adverted to the fact that the Legislature of South Carolina 
had acted upon this question, and had adopted certain resolutions with 
regard to it. Those resolutions, however, had never been presented to 
the House ; why, he could not say. 

[Mr. Elmore here remarked that such resolutions had, indeed, passed 
the two Houses of the South Carolina Legislature, unanimously. But 
they had not yet been forwarded to the Representatives of that State in 
Congress.] 

Mr. Adams resumed. That, of course, sufficiently accounts for their 
not being presented here. Yet it was most obvious that thev had ope- 
rated as strongly upon the action of gentlemen from that State on this 
floor, as he hoped that those would do upon the Representatives from 
New York, which had been adopted by so overwhelming a majority of 
the House of Assembly of that State ; especially as there was a Repre 
sentative from the State of South Carolina upon that floor, one of the 
ablest members of that delegation, and of the House, who was a member 
of the Committee on Foreign Aflairs, and who had declared in his place 
that he had not looked into one — " no, not a single one" — of all the me= 
morials and State resolutions referred to that committee by the House, 
Perhaps, the reason with him for acting thus was, that the resolutions 
from his own Legislature had not been forwarded to him officially ; and 
that, therefore, it was not his duty to look into the proceedings upon this 
subject of other Legislatures. Mr. A. was sorry that this was so. He 
was sorry to observe the progress of this principle of suppressing in that 



54 

House ; for lie considered this action, or rather non-action, of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs upon the matters referred to them as a part of 
that general system of siippi-essing. He looked upon it as a matter of 
far greater consequence and moment than the currency questions which 
agitate that House so constantly, and which, compared with this import- 
ant subject, he considered to be but as dust in the balance, and not 
worthy to be named. 

While he was upon this subject, he begged leave to address a few 
words to the friends of tiie Administration in this House. The system 
of suppressing freedom of petition and freedom of speech upon that floor 
was one that was bringing upon the House the deepest obloquy. He 
believed it to be the chief cause of the odium into which the Administra- 
tion had fallen of late. The adoption of this principle had been carried 
at the dictation of slaveholders, who had been suffered to carry into 
effect the proceedings of an unconstitutional conventicle of that and the 
other House, in which that principle was concocted, and from a participa- 
tion in which concoction the Representatives from free States had been 
excluded. And yet they had suffered that conventicle to bring up their 
odious resolution, and cram it down their throats, telling them, in effect, 
this is our law, and you must take and swallow il, no matter how difficult 
to digest it ma}' prove, if not to you, to your constituents. And (added 
Mr. A.) there is the list of yeas and nays upon your Journal, in which 
you may see who these Representatives from the free States were. 

[Mr. Legare here rose, and asked if the remarks of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts were in order, under the pending motions to amend. 

The Chair replied that the amendments under consideration opened 
the whole subject of the annexation of Texas, and the propriety of a 
reference of that subject to several different committees. Still, a discus- 
sion of a topic distinctly separate from these would not be in order. 
The Chair was not prepared to decide that the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts was out of order.] 

Mr. Adams resumed. He would saj' no more upon the point at which 
he had been interrupted. He would spare the feelings of the gentleman 
from South Carolina, [Mr. Legare.] He had been addressing the 
friends of the present Administration who represented upon that floor the 
People of the free States, and had been reminding them of the odium 
and discredit which had been by them brought upon the Administration 
of which they were supporters, by suffering this gag to be forced upon 
them, to the suppression of all debate on subjects which it is the peculiar 
province of the body of which they are members to consider. If it had 
been their object to bring odium on the Administration, they could not 
have done it more effectually. 

[Here Mr. Boon rose, and said that he had been toasted in Indiana, 
at a large popular meeting, where three thousand people of all political par- 
ties were present, for the vote he had given on the occasion alluded to,] 

Well, sir, (resumed Mr. A.,) I hope the toast gave the member from 
Indiana great consolation. [Laughter.] But the toast does not at all 
interfere with my argument or my exhortation. And how was this sys- 
tem of heaping odium upon the Administration by its own friends begun? 
With a resolution passed through the House by the previous question, 
on a report made by a gentleman from South Carolina, now not a mem- 



55 

ber of this House, [Mr. Pinckney,] This, sir, is the point of com- 
mencement. This was the first that we heard, sir, of this House violating 
the right of the People of this country to petition, and that of their 
Representatives to speak, upon this tioor. Sir, I will do justice to the 
members from South Carolina, and some others, who were ashamed of 
this proceeding, and who endeavored at the time to put a stop to its 
progress, taking, as they boldly and frankly did, the ground that the 
House had no right to act in any manner upon the question. But those 
«-entlemen were in a minority of their own friends, and were obliged to 
submit to the majority in this matter. At length, they were in favor of 
receiving these petitions, «fec., and then passed an order that they be not 
read or considered. And it was this proceeding on the part of the 
House, Mr. A. would repeat, which had brought such a weight of odium 
upon the Administration, which was in so large a majority at that time 
in that House. It was an unworthy evasion of the question the House 
was called on to meet ; there it began, and ever since, from that time to 
the present, all petitions, n)emorials, and resolutions, in any way relating 
to slavery and the slave trade, have been laid on the table, without con- 
sideration, or even reading ; and this was the process whereby the right 
of petition had been broken down. 

[The Chair interposed, with the remark that this subject was not 
before the House.] 

Mr. Adams resumed. He had been showing that the House had fallen 
under the general odium, by reason of its having systematically sup- 
pressed the sacred rights of speech and petition ; and he had been about 
to show that that odium had been greatly deepened by the course pur- 
sued by the House with regard to petitions and legislative resolutions 
upon the Texas question. He was proceeding, he said, to show that the 
proceeding of the Committee on Foreign Affairs with regard to the sub- 
jects referred to them, and which were now under consideration, was a 
part of this system, and was urging upon the friends of the Administra- 
tion, in consideration of their interests, and those of their constituents, 
the expediency and importance of restoring the better slate of things 
that once existed, when the sacred rights which had been violated were 
recognised and protected upon that floor. 

He now came to another step in the progress of this system of sup- 
pression. This was, to lay on the table all papers that might be offered 
relating to Texas. This proposition was for some time systematically 
made, sometimes in one form, and sometimes in another, by different 
members. The chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [Mr. 
Howard] had designated these propositions as disturbing causes of 
excitement, &c.,and had told the House that the subject ought not to be 
discussed, that it was best to let it alone, and that the House should not 
act the tragedy of Agitation, but the pantomime of Hush. This was 
another step forward in the work of suppressing the freedom of petition. 
The next he would mention was that taken with reference to the peti- 
tions upon the Indian relations of the country. Though the cases were 
different in character, yet the process having been once instituted, it 
went on, and swept away all these Indian petitions and memorials in ns 
path. There had been presented to the House the petitions of fifteen 
thousand Cherokees, and hundreds of petitions from the People of the 



56 

United Slates, upon this subject; and what had been done with them? 
By " inadvertence," tlie motion to lay on the table the Cherokee peti- 
tions was by a majority of one vote rejected ; but very soon afterwards 
the party rallied again, a reconsideration of the rejecting vote was mov- 
ed and carried, and, without looking into the petitions, they were all 
laid on the table. The suppression system was applied lo them all. 

[Here Mr. Adams susjiended his remarks, the morning hour having 
elapsed.] 

Saturday, June 23, 1838. 

[Note by Mr. Adams.] 

In his argument on the 14tli of June, urging the recommitment to the 
Committee on Foreign AfTairsof the resolutions of seven State Legislatures 
and the petitions of more than one hundred thousand petitioners, relating 
to the annexation of Texas to this Union, which had been referred to 
the committee, and upon which the committee had reported, without 
looking into one of them, the first point of controversy upon which Mr. 
Adams took issue with the reporter, [Mr. Dromgoole,] the chairivan, 
[Mr. Howard,] and another member of the committee, [Mr. Legare,] 
was on the duty of the committee, by the 76th rule of the House, to 
take into consideration, and report their opinion upon, the matters re- 
ferred to them by the House. Mr. Dromgoole had refused to answer 
the question of Mr. Adams, whether the committee had taken into con- 
sideration the resolutions of State Legislatures, petitions, memorials, 
and remonstrances, relating to the annexation of Texas, and had de- 
clared he would not be catechised by him. In this refusal to answer, 
and denial of the right to question, Mr. Dromgoole had been sustained 
by the chairman of the committee. Mr. Legare had declared that he 
liad not looked into one of the resolutions, petitions, memorials, and re- 
monstrances, which had been referred to the committee. The point a£ 
issue between Mr. Adams and the three members of the Con>mittee on 
Foreign Affairs was the duty of Ike committee to consider and report a 
deliberate opinion upon the subject and important documents thus sol- 
emnly and at various times referred to them by the House. From the 
exposition of the duty of the committee to the House, he passed to that 
of the House to the petitioners, to the State Legislatures, and lo the 
whole nation, to treat with respect the resolutions of the Legislatures, 
and the petitions, memorials, and remonstrances of individuals, respect- 
fully addressed to the House ; and he spoke with deep regret and severe 
animadversion of the resolution of the House, repeated three years suc- 
cessively, condemning all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and papers 
relating to the abolition of slavery or the slave trade to be laid on the 
table, without beir^g read, printed, debated, or referred. He considered 
this resolution of the 25th May, 1836, as the comn>encement of a sys- 
tem of suppression of the right of petition, expressly guarantied to the 
People by the Constitution, and of the freedom of speech and of debate — 
the constitutional right of every member of the House ; a right, also, of 
the People, inasmuch as, without it, the Representative cannot possibly 
discharge his daty to his constituents. 

These topics were discussed by Mr. Adams in the morning hour of 



57 

the 16th of June. On the preceding day (the 15th) the chairman of the 
committee [Mr. Howard] had stated that, in the proceedings of the 
Legislatures referred to the committee, there was no specific proposition 
for the annexation of Texas, and that there was, therefore, no such 
proposition before the House, upon which the House, or any committee, 
could act ; and with regard to the petitions, he had said that many of 
them were from women, who had disgraced themselves and their coun- 
try by presenting them. 

On the 19th, •20th, and 21st of June, Mr. Adams reviewed the pro- 
ceedings of the House, in referring the resolutions of the several State 
Legislatures, and afterwards all the petitions relating to the annexation 
of Texas to this Union, to the committee. After adverting to the fact that 
the first petition received by the House at the present session, against 
the annexation of Texas, had been presented by him, and that it was from 
238 WOMEN of Plymouth, the principal town of the district represented 
by him, he read, or caused to be read at the Clerk's table, and com- 
mented upon the several resolutions of the seven State Legislatures of 
Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, Alabama, and 
Massachusetts ; all of which had been referred to the committee, and in 
which, particularly in the resolutions of Tennessee, there was a distinct 
and specific proposition for the annexation of Texas, into which the 
committee had never looked. Mr. A. noticed, also, the proceedings in 
three other of the State Legislatures, Pennsylvania, New York, and 
South Carolina, upon this subject, but which had not been formally com- 
municated to the House. And he read and made observations on a re- 
cent debate in the Legislature of Texas, upon the question whether the 
application for annexation to these United States, by that Republic, 
should be withdrawn. 

On the 22d, after finishing his remarks upon the debate in the Legis- 
lature of Texas, he made an expostulating appeal to the friends of the 
present Administration in the House, against tliat system of suppres- 
sion of the right of the People to petition, and of the freedom of speech 
and of debate in the House, which had commenced with the gag-resolu- 
tion reported by Henry L. Pinckney on the 25th of May, 1836; and of 
which he considered this report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
upon so many resolutions of State Legislatures, petitions, memorials, 
and remonstrances, without looking into one of them, as a natural con- 
sequence, and a most alarming extension. He warned them that this 
system of suppression was doing more to bring odium upon the Admin- 
istration of the Federal Government, in the minds of the People, than 
all its other errors put together. He then undertook to trace the pro- 
gress and to expose the encroaching character of this system of suppres- 
sion — applied, at first, only to the subject of slavery and the slave trade, 
but gradually spreading and absorbing in its despotic interdict almost 
every subject of petition, and almost every class of petitioners, inclu- 
ding, at last, the resolutions of sovereign States. 

Li this enumeration of interdicted subjects and interdicted classes of 
petitioners, Mr. A. was, on the 22d of June, interrupted by the expira- 
tion of the morning hour. 

He resumed it on the morning of the 23d ; and, by reference to the 
proceedings of the House, in multitudes of cases, since the resolution 



^8 

of May 25, 1836, he showed that the precedent then established, of 
treating with contempt, and refusing to consider, all petitions relating to 
slavery, by laying them, unread, upon the table, had been extended, not 
by the general order, but by special motions made in every case, and 
always sanctioned by the same majority of slaveholders and Northern 
Administration men with Southern principles : first, to all petitions, me- 
morials, remonstrances, and resolutions of State Legislatures, concern- 
ing the annexation of Texas to this Union ; next, to the petition of fif- 
teen thousand Cherokee Indians, and to great multitudes of petitions 
from many States of this Union, imploring mercy, humanity, and justice 
from this Government to the Indians; then to memorials, petitions, and 
resolutions remonstrating against the vomiting, by foreign Governments, 
both in Europe and America, of their vagrant paupers and convicts of 
their jails upon our shores. Upon some proposition of ray honorable 
colleague [Mr. Lincoln] upon this subject, said Mr. A., the tainted gale 
of abolition was snuffed by the imagination, if not by the sense, of the 
slaveholders around him, and the whole subject was laid on the table. 
Then the contempt of petitions had crept into the committee-rooms, 
and shed its mildews over the whole subject of the exchanges, currency, 
and banking. Thus, upwards of forty petitions, from every section of 
the country, for a national bank, had, at the special session, been re- 
ferred to the Committee of Ways and Means, and they had reported a 
resolution against them without reading them; and, last of all, the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs had now crowned the system of suppres- 
sion by a report, in three lines, upon the resolutions of seven State Le- 
gislatures, and the petitions of more than one hundred thousand citizens, 
without looking into one of them. From the interdict of subjects of 
petition from the consideration of the House, he passed to that of classes 
of petitioners ; and here it was impossible for him to pass over the for- 
mal resolution of the House of Representatives of the 12th of Febru- 
ary, 1837, " That slaves do not possess the right of petition secured to 
the People of the United States by the Constitution. ''"' In adverting to 
this resolution, he observed that it excluded one sixth part of the People 
of the United States from the mere naked right of petition ; that it denied 
them the right of prayer — the right which is not denied to the meanest 
and vilest of the human race by his Maker. He proceeded to say that 
it was the last of a series of resolutions offered to the House, witii the 
avowed object of invoking a sentence of severe censure upon him, by 
the House, for simply asking the question of the Speaker, whether a 
petition purporting to be from slaves came within the resolution of the 
19th of January, 1837, the gag-law of that session. He said the mem- 
bers of the present House, who had been present on that occasion, 
would recollect that he had then explicitly avowed the opinion that 
slaves were not excluded by the Constitution of the United States from 
exercising the right of petition ; and that 

Here the Speaker interrupted Mr. Adams, and declared him out of 
order. 

Mr. Adams insisted that he was not out of order ; that he was addu- 
cing, by way of illustration to his argument, an historical fact. That 
he had declared, at the time, that if a petition from slaves, complaining 
of any grievance or distress, to which all mankind might be liable, and 



59 

which it would be in the power of the House to relieve, should be senJ 
to him, and the House would receive it, he would present it ; and that 
since that time 

Here Mr. Legare, of South Carolina, rose and called Mr. Adams to 
order. Calls of order! order! were repeated by sundry other members: 
there was much confusion in the House, and the Speaker ordered Mr. 
Adams to take his seat. 

Mr. Adams persisted in holding the floor, and in affirming that he 
was not out of order. He demanded that, conformably to the 23d rule 
of the House, the words which he had spoken, and alleged to be disor- 
derly, should be taken down in writing ; and said that he would then 
appeal from the decision of the Speaker to the House. 

The Speaker refused to have the words alleged to be disorderly taken 
down in writing ; said that the Speaker was not, in calling a member 
to order, bound by that rule. That he called Mr. Adams to order for 
"irrelevancy in debate;" and read the rule that a member shall confine 
himself to the (]uestion under debate ; a rule so perfectly vague and in- 
definite, that the Speaker never resorts to it, unless when sure of being 
sustained by a majority of the House. 

Mr. Adams said that this was not a fair statement of the question. 
That he would not appeal from the decision of the Speaker as so stated; 
but he still insisted that the words spoken by him, and alleged to be dis- 
orderly, should be taken down in writing, and said he would then appeal 
from the decision. The Speaker, nevertheless, took the question of 
the appeal, by yeas and nays, upon his own statement, and his decision 
was sustained by a vote of 115 yeas to 36 nays. 

On this decision it is to be observed — 

First. That it was upon an appeal not taken — Mr. Adams having ex- 
pressly declared that he would not appeal from the decision of the Speak- 
er upon the question as stated by him — a decision which could never 
serve as a precedent in any other case, because there would be nothing 
upon the Journal to show in what the irrelevancy charged upon him con- 
sisted. It was a mere arbitrary dictum of the Speaker, pronouncing ir- 
relevant that which had, in fact, the most pointed bearing upon the ar^ 
gument. 

Secondly. That of the 115 members who voted to sustain this decision 
of the Speaker, 69 were of the same persons who, on the 21st of Decem- 
ber, had voted for the gag-resolution dictated by the Southern conclave. 

Thirdly. That when this vote of 115 to 36 was taken, amounting only 
to 151, there were 203 members in their seats, 52 of whom, therefore, 
did not vote at all. The fact that there were 203 members present was 
ascertained by two other questions by yeas and nays taken within half 
an hour afterwards, upon both of which 203 names stand recorded. 

No part of the speech of Mr. Adams, from the 16th of June to the 7th 
of July, has been reported in the daily Globe; but on the evening of the 
23d of June, there appeared in that paper the following statement of the 
occurrence of that day, published, no doubt, with the approbation of the 
Speaker: 

"TEXAS. 
" Mr. Adams proceeded in his remarks on the report of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs in relation to the annexation of Texas, and was referring to the right of slaves 



to petition, and the proceedings in the House last Congress upon his tendering a pe- 
tition of that character, stating that he should have no hesitation in presenting a peti- 
tion from a slave, if his memorial was properly couched, and on a proper subject, or 
something to this effect. Mr. A. was proceeding in this line of remark, when 

" The Speaker called him to order, saying that the remarks were irrelevant to the 
subject under consideration. 

"Mr. Adams said he was putting an extreme case, by way of illustration, which 
was in order. 

'' The Speaker again reminded Mr. A. that he was out of order. 

" Mr. Legare rose, and said he felt compelled to call the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts to order ; and cries of order were heard in various parts of the House. 

" Mr. Adams called upon the Speciker to reduce the disorderly words to writing, 
and appealed from the decision of the Chair. 

'"'The Speaker said the Chair could not be called upon to reduce remarks made 
out of order to writing. It had never been known, either by any rule, or by parlia- 
mentary usage ; and if such a course could be sustained, it would continually bring 
the Chair into conflict with members, and would render it impossible for the House 
to proceed with its business. 

" Several members referred to the twenty-third rule of the House, which requires 
that disorderly words shall be reduced to writing. 

" The Speaker said he was perfectly aware of that rule, and it applied tc cases 
where one member called another to order for disorderly or personal remarks, and not 
to the Speaker when he called a member to order for irrelevant remarks, for the rule 
says the Speaker sliall call m.embers to order, and makes it imperatively his duty. 

" Mr. Adams called for the reading of the rule by which the Speaker called him 
to order, and refused to reduce the objectionable remarks to writing. 

" The Speaker read the rule requiring that a member ' shall confine himself to 
the question under debate,' and said he had called the gentleman from. Massachusetts 
to order for irrelevancy in debate. As he was about to put the question on the ap- 
peal from the decision of the Chair, 

"Mr. Adams again insisted upon having the words reduced to writing. 

" Cries of 'order !' ^ order!' 

" The Speaker directed Mr. Adams to take his seat. 

"' Mr. Adams continued to hold the floor, and persisted in dem.andmg that the 
words should be reduced to writing, and said he would then appeal, but he would not 
appeal from the decision in the form in which the Speaker had put it. 

" The Speaker then put the question upon the appeal ; and the decision of the 
Chair was sustained, as follows : Yeas 115, nays 36. 

" So the decision of the Chair was sustained by the House, and Mr. Adams thus 
declared to be out of order. 

" Mr. Boon then called for the orders of the day." 

It was republished in the National Intelligencer of Monday morning, 
the 25th, copied verbatim from the Globe, even to the closing remark, 
that Mr. Adams was thus declared to be out of order. It is then added 
that Mr. Boon called for the orders of the day ; but it is not stated, as 
was nevertheless the fact, that upon inquiry made of the Speaker wheth- 
er the hour had not expired, he answered that there yet remained one 
minute, upon which Mr. Ad.\ms immediately said, " then I claim that 
minute," and added that he had much more to say, although the decision 
of the Speaker and of the House had taken from him one of the pillars 
of his edifice. 

His motive for resuming immediately the floor was to foreclose a ques- 
tion which he saw might be made at the next morning hour, of his right 
to proceed without a formal permission of the House. After the decision 
of the Speaker and of the House that he was out of order, because he 
touched upon slavery as an objection to the annexation of Texas, he dis- 
trusted the fulfilment of the promise made to Mr. Thompson (hat the 



61 

Texas question should be opened, and he wished to secure imnoediately 
the unquestioned right to proceed. 

He proceeded, accordingly, on the morning of Tuesday, the 26th of 
June. A report of his remarks on that day was published in the National 
Intelligencer of the lOlh of July, under the erroneous date of 3d of July. 
It will be seen at a glance, by the perusal of that report, that it followed 
immediately after that of the 23d, when Mr. Adams was arrested in the 
midst of his discourse, and declared out of order for irrelevancy. He 
then passed, in the enumeration of interdicted classes of petitioners, to 
the women ; and as this class had not only, like all the rest, been slighted 
by the Committee on Foreign Afiairs, but grossly insulted by the chair- 
man in his speech of the 15th of June, Mr. Adams felt himself obliged 
at once to defend their rights and to vindicate their good name with that 
anxious earnestness inspired by a deep conviction of the wrong done 
them by that speech. To this he devoted the mornings of the 28th, 29th, 
and 30th of June ; the report of the last of which was also prematurely 
published in the National Intelligencer of the 10th of July, preceding that 
of the 26th of June, erroneously dated the 3d of July. 

On the 3d, 4th, and 5th of July, Mr. Adams addressed the House 
upon the question of the constitutional power of Congress, or of any de- 
partment of this Government, to annex ihe People of a foreign independ- 
ent State to this Union ; and on the 6th and 7th, upon the objection to 
the annexation of Texas, arising from its necessary consequence of in- 
volving us in a war with Mexico. He undertook to show that the acqui- 
sition of Texas, as a land of slavery, had been so darling an object of 
policy to the late, and still was to the present Administration, that it had 
been and was yet pursued by a system of deep duplicity, and of rancor- 
ous hostility to Mexico, stimulating this nation, even by Executive mes- 
sages, and by corresponding movements of the Admiaistration managers 
in both Houses of Congress, to a most unjust, reckless, and cruel war 
with that Republic, to wrest from her and doom to perpetual and irre- 
deemable slavery a portion of her territory equal to one fourth of the 
whole original thirteen United States. 

The development of this position, and the demonstration of its truth, 
required the production, analysis, and comparison of a multitude of doc- 
uments, only a small portion of which had been exhibited by Mr. Adams, 
when the expiration of the last morning hour brought his discourse neces- 
sarily to a close. On the last day, however, he read to the House a 
secret and confidential letter from the late President of the United States 
to William Fulton, Secretary of the then Territory of Arkansas, now a 
Senator of the United States from that State. The letter is dated the 
10th of December, 1830, and proves that as early as that day the vvriter 
of it was fully informed of the conspiracy then organized, under the com- 
mand of his confidential friend and favorite, Samuel Houston, for break- 
ing off the province of Texas from the Republic of Mexico, and erecting 
it into an independent State. That he considered it as an enterprise 
highly criminal ; and wrote this letter, not to the Governor, but to the 
Secretary of the Territory of Arkansas, directing him to take measures 
for counteracting and defeating this conspiracy ; well knowing that the 
Governor, and not the Secretary, of the Territory was the only person 
who couid have taken any such measures with effect. From the Govern- 



62 

or this letter was kept profoundly secret. On producing the copy of 
the letter, Mr. A. expressed his suspicion that it had never been sent to 
its destination, but observed that the fact could be ascertained, the per- 
son to whom it was addressed being at Washington. The chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs then addressed a letter to Mr. Fulton, 
inquiring whether he had received such a letter from the late President, 
and was answered by him that he had, some time in January, 1831. 
What he did to counteract or defeat the conspiracy is as secret as the 
Setter itself was intended to be. That he could do nothing effective with- 
out the direction of the Governor, to whom the letter was never commu- 
nicated, is as apparent as that nothing effective was done. It is also a 
matter of more than ordinary notoriety, that a year and a half after this 
letter was written, that is, in the spring and summer of 1832, General 
Houston was again for several months at Washington, in constant inter- 
course apparently, as friendly, familiar, and confidential with the writer 
of this letter, as he had ever been before. Nor is it less notorious that, 
after the successful consummation of the conspiracy, when the President 
of the Mexican Republic was a prisoner to the Texian insurgents against 
Mexico, the same General Samuel Houston, commander-in-chief of their 
army, and now President of their Republic, as the price of liberation of 
the Mexican President, sent him to Washington to negotiate with Presi- 
dent .fackson the cession of Texas by Mexico to these United States. 

The further disclosure and demonstration of this tortuous and double- 
dealing system of measures and of policy, to fortify, sustain, and perpet- 
uate the institution of slavery and the ascendency of the slaveholding in- 
terest over that of freedom in this Union, is necessarily deferred until the 
next session of Congress. Whether it will then be practicable, must de- 
pend upon the yet problematical contingency whether another Southern 
conventicle of slaveholders will command to the submissive party disci- 
pline of the North another resolution " that all petitions, memorials, and 
papers, touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, or trans- 
ferring of slaves, in any State, District, or Territory of the United States, 
be laid upon the table, without being debated, printed, read, or referred, 
and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon." 

Tuesday, June 26, 1838. 

Mr. Adams was entitled to the floor, but yielded it at the instance of 
several gentlemen ; until Mr. Howard suggested that Mr. A. be permit- 
ted to proceed, in order that an opportunity might be afforded of replying 
to his arguments. 

Mr. Adams then said, that having been desirous to accommodate, as far 
as in his power, every gentleman who had petitions or resolutions to oft'er, 
'ne had thus lost a large part of the hour to which his remarks must, neces- 
sarily be confined; and he feared that he should thus be compelled, at i(s 
termination, to break off in the midst, leaving a hiatus imlde dejlendns. 

He had last Saturday been endeavoring to convince the House how 
odious this Administration was rendering itself by the course the House 
was pursuing in relation to petitions — a course now extended so as to 
<embrace also resolutions of the Legislatures of Slates of this Union, by 
refusing or evading the consideration of them. 

In doing so, he had referred to the great variety of subjects of public 



63 

concern to which this system of exclusion had been extended ; and, after 
going through with the classification of subjects thus treated, he had been 
going on to show the classification of persons so excluded from the right 
of petition. In doing this, said Mr. A., it became necessary for me to 
look to a portion of the population of this country, amounting to not less 
than one sixth part of the whole, to whom the 7-ight of petition had been 
formally denied by a resolution of this House. 

At that period of the discussion I was arrested by the Speaker, and 
by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Legare,] himself one of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs : a proceeding certainly in entire con- 
sistency with the declaration he made openly on this floor, that of ail the 
memorials and other documents on the subject of the annexation of 
Texas, referred to that committee, he had not looked into one, and that 
he did not consider it his duty to do so. I say, that, in calling me to or- 
der in the manner he did, he acted in perfect consistency with himself 
and with iiis own principles. The Speaker sustained the gentleman by 
deciding that the observations I was making were not relevant, the sub- 
ject under consideration of the House being the annexation of Texas to 
this Union. Vast multitudes of petitions and memorials and resolutions 
of State Legislatures, a great proportion of them against, and some few in 
favor of the annexation, had been sent up here and presented in this 
House, and, among the reasons urged against the annexation, slavery 
being the first and the greatest of all. Yet, when I came to touch that 
point of niy argument — as soon as I came to name the word "slavery"— 
I was forthwith arrested, as entering on matter irrelevant to the subject 
in hand. Well, sir, the decision of the House sustained the Speaker; 
although, in future times, if any one shall look at the Journal of that day's 
proceedings for the principle of the Speaker's decision, he may look in 
vain. No principle is stated, nor can the case ever be used as a prece- 
dent hereafter. 

The decision, I confess, will prove a source of great embarrassment to 
me. It places me much in the circumstances of a company of strollers, 
who advertised to perform the tragedy of Hamlet, " the part of Hamlet 
being, for this evening, omitted." No discussion of the rights of slaves, 
or of the subject of slaver}*, will be admitted as relevant. I wish to con- 
form myself to the decisions of the Speaker, and of this House ; but I 
confess the decision has changed my previous opinion, viz: that the sub- 
ject of Texas was, at last, to be opened. I understood that it had at 
length been conceded, not to me, nor to those who think with me in this 
matter, but to a certain portion of this House, representing the southern 
extremity of the Union, equally anxious with myself to have the whole 
subject discussed. I had thought that to their wishes, at least, the point 
had been conceded. I felt confirmed in that conclusion by the amend- 
ment offered by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. 
Thompson,] proposing that the President shall be directed to enter upon 
negotiations for the annexation. When that gentleman shall come to 
address the House in support of his amendment, how he will to do steer 
clear of the subject of slavery, I confess I am totally unable to foresee. 
But I did not expect, when the gentleman from South Carolina had pre- 
vailed on the friends of the Administration to open the doors of the 
House for this discussion, that those doors were to be slapped to in mj 



64 

face the Instant T entered on the most important part of my argument. 
It had occurred to me that this was not very proper from gentlemen who 
had confined themselves to one side of that question. The House, in 
this decision, seems to have followed an example set them elsewhere — I 
will not name the place — where all the eloquence of the body has been 
opened in favor ol the annexation, and no answer at all has been heard, 
the House having then voted to lay the subject on the table. Per- 
haps the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Thompson] was of 
opinion that this would be the course pursued in this House also. That 
all who wished to speak in favor of annexation and of slavery would be 
permitted to do so, but that no permission would be given to any one to 
answer. I say this, because, among the yeas and nays taken on the de- 
cision of the Speaker yesterday, I find, among those who voted to sustain 
that decision, the names of gentlemen who, I understand, are very 
anxious to have the Texian question opened. Still, the moment the 
term "slavery" is used, mum is the word — 
Digito compesce labellum. 

Mr, Pickens here rose to explain. He said he had been called to 
vote on the question whether the gentleman from Massachusetts was in 
or out of order. He had not called the gentleman to order, or shut the 
doors of discussion upon him, in relation to any subject he chose to argue. 
He had never voted to gag the gentleman. But when he had been called 
to vote whether the gentleman was or was not in order, he had no alter- 
native. Believing the gentleman to be out of order, he had voted that 
he was out of order. He could vote no other way. 

The Chair here reminded Mr. Adams that the decision of yesterday, 
on the question of order, was not now before the House. 

Mr. Adams resumed. Well, sir, I was simply saying that my argu- 
ment must necessarily be crippled when I am arrested on a charge of dis- 
order not specified. The Chair said I was making remarks that were 
irrelevant, and then came a decision of the House in perfect conformity 
with its resolution of the 21st of December. 

The Chair again said that the decision of the Chair, as subsequently' 
confirmed by the House, was not now in question. He hoped the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts would confine himself to the question on the 
resolution respecting Texas. 

Mr. Adams. Well, relevant or irrelevant, I was saying that one sixth 
of the People of the United States had, by a resolution of this House, 
been deprived of the right of petition guarantied to the People of the 
United States by the Constitution. 

I now come to a much more numerous class, fn doing so, I shall be 
obliged to refer to the first petition on this subject of annexation ; it was 
presented by me, and, on presenting it, T moved its reference to a select 
committee, but the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs im- 
mediately claimed that it should be referred to them. It was from 238 
women of Plymouth, and was couched in the following words: 

♦• To the House of Representatives of the United States : 

"The undersigned, women, of Plymouth, (Mass.,) thorough]}' aware of the sinful- 
ness of slavery, and the consequent impoUcy and disastrous tendency of its extension 
in our country, do most respectfully remonstrate, with all our souls, against the an- 
nexation of Texas to the United States, as a slaveholding territory." 



65 

That is the whole of tlie petiiiou. Eveiy one of the signers is, I pre- 
sume, a mother, a wife, a daughter, or a sister of some constituent of 
mine. Personaliy the petitioners are unknown to me. 

On the same day, I presented a second petition, which was inchided 
under the operation of the same resolution of the House. It is from 153 
men and 192 women, all of Hanover, in the county of Plymouth. The 
men, 1 presume, are all my constituents; the women stand, I presume, 
in t!ie same relations to them as did those I last referred to to other con- 
stituents of mine. This petition is still shorter than the last. 

' ' To the Senate and House of Represeniativcs of the United States : 

"The undersigned, citizens and inhabitants of Hanover, Plymouth county, m the 
State of Massachusetts, respectfully pray your honorable body promptly to reject all 
proposals for the annexation of Texas to this Union, from whatever source they have 
come." 

The first was entirely from women: this is part from men, and part 
from women, more than half of the signers being of the female sex. I 
will not ask whether it is the judgment of tliis House, but whether it is 
the sober judgment of the People of these United States, that the right of 
petition itself is to be denied to the female sex? to Women? Whether 
it is their will that women, as such, shall not petition this House 1 Let 
me not misrepresent this House, or the chairman of the committee from 
whoni the report on the Texas memorials comes. I will read a passage 
or two from the speech of the honorable gentleman [Mr. Howard] who 
introduced that report. He said : 

'* As to the numerous petitions of individuals remonstrating against the annexation 
of Texas, he supposed that these persons would be satisfied as long as Texas remained 
out of the Union, and, at all events, luitil she again expressed a desire to come in. 
Many of these petitions were signed by women. He always felt regret when petitions 
thus signed were presented to the House relating to political matters. He thought 
that these females could have a sufficient field for the exercise of their influence in the 
discharge of their duties to their fathers, their husbands, or their children, cheering 
the domestic circle, and shedding over it the mild radiance of the social virtues, in- 
stead of rushing into the fierce .struggles of political life. He felt sorrow at this de- 
parture from their proper sphere, in which there was abundant room for the practice 
of the most extensive benevolence and philanthropy, because he considered it discred- 
itable, not only to their own particulai" section of the country, but also to the national 
character, and thus giving him a right to express this opinion." 

Yes, sir, he considered it "discreditable," not only to the section of 
the country whence these memorials come, but discreditable to the nation. 
Sir, was it from a son — was it from a father — was it from a husband, 
that I heard these words? Does the gentleman consider that women, 
by petitioning this House in favor of suffering and of distress, peiforrn an 
office "discreditable" to themselves, to the section ol" country where 
they reside, and to this nation? I trust to the good nature of that gen 
tleman that he will retract such an assertion. I have a right to make 
this call upon him. It is to the wives and to the daughters of my constit- 
uents that he applies this language. Am I to consider their conduct in 
petitioning this House as a discredit to that section of the Union and to 
their country ? Sir, if there is any thing in which they could do honor 
to their country, it was in this very act. He says that women have no 
right to petition Congress on political subjects. Why, sir, what does the 
gentleman understand by " political subjects ?" Every thing in which 
this House has an agency — every thing which relates to peace and relate.? 
5 



66 

to war, or to any other of the great interests of societ}', is a political 8ub= 
ject. Are women to have no opinions or action on subjects relating to 
the general welfare? This must be thn gentleman's principle. Where 
did he get it? Did he find it in sacred history? in the account which 
is given of the emigration of a whole nation from the land of Egypt, 
under the guidance of Moses and Aaron ? What was the language of 
Miriam, the prophetess, when, after one of the noblest and most sublime 
songs of triumph that ever met the human eye or ear, it is said — 

"And Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand,; 
and all the women went out after her with trimbreis and with dances. And Miriam 
answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously ; the horse and 
hie rider hath he thrown into the sea." 

Sir, is it in that portion of sacred history that he finds the principle 
that it is improper for women to take any concern in public affairs? 
This happened in the infancy of the Jewish nation — in its very forma- 
tion as such. But has the gentleman never read or heard read the account 
which is given, at a later period, of the victory of Deborah? 

" And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, sheywc^g-ec? Israel at that time. 
And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel, in Mount 
Ephraim ; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.''^ 

Has he never read that inspiring cry — 

"Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song; arise Barak, and lead 
thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam." 

Is tho principle recognised here that women have nothing to do with 
political afiairs? No, not so much as even to petition in regard to them ? 
Has he forgotten the deed of Jael, who slew the dreaded enemy of her 
country, who had so often invaded and ravaged it? Has he forgotten the 
name of Esther, who, by a petition, saved her people and her country ? 

«« Then said the King unto her, What is thy petition. Queen Esther'' and what 
is thy request"! It shall be given thee to half of the kingdom." 

Sir, I might go through the whole of the sacred history of the Jews, 
down to the advent of our Saviour, and find innumerable examples of 
women, who not only took an active part in the politics of their times, 
but who are held up with honor to posterity because they did so. I 
might point him to the names of Abigail, of Huldah, of Judith, the beauti- 
ful widow of Bethulia, who in the days of the captivity slew Holofernes, 
the commanding general of the King of Babylon. But let me come down 
to a happier age under the dispensation of the nevv covenant. 

Since I was last upon this floor addressing the House on this subject, 
it has been my fortune to hear a discourse on perhaps the greatest miracle 
ever performed by our Saviour while he was on earth — 1 mean the rais- 
ing of Lazarus from the dead ; and I could not but be struck by the 
remark of the preacher, a gentleman unknown to me, that the Saviour 
performed this stupendous miracle at i\\e petition of a uinman ! If gentle- 
men will consult the sacred record, they will find that the fact is so. 

But now, to leave sacred history, and go to profane history. Does the 
chairman of the committee find there that it is "discreditable" for wo- 
men to take any interest or any part in political affairs ? Let him read 
the history of Greece. Let him examine the character of Aspasia, and 
this in a country where the conduct and freedom of women were more 
f everely restricted than in any modern nation, save among the Turks. It 



()7 

was in Athens, where female character had not that full development 
which is permitted to it in our state of society. Has lie forgottrn that 
Spartan mother, who said to her son when going out to battle, " My son, 
come back to me with thy shield, or vpon thy shield 1" Can he have 
forgotten the innumerable instances recorded by the profane historians, 
where women distinguished, nay, immortalized their names, by the part 
they took in the affairs of their country? 

Has he never read the history of Rome ? 

[Here the morning hour expired.] 

Thursday, June 28, 1838. 

Mr. Ad.\ms resumed the floor in support of his resolution respecting 
the admission of Texas into the Union. 

When I last addressed the House I was engaged in discussing the 
principle asserted by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; 
the practical effect of which must be to deprive one half the popula- 
tion of these United States of the right of petition before this House. 
I say it goes to deprive the entire female sex of all right of petition here. 
The ()rinciple was not an abstract principle. It is stated abstractedly, 
in the report of his remarks, which I have once read to the House. I 
will read it again ; it is highly important, and well deserving of the at- 
tention of this House, and its solemn decision. It referred to all peti- 
tions on the subject of the annexation of Texas to this Union which 
come from women. 

•' Many of these petitions were signed by women. He always felt regret when pe- 
titions thus signed were presented to the House relating to political matters. He 
thought that these females could have a sufficient field for the exercise of their influ- 
ence in the discharge of their duties to their fathers, their husbands, or their children, 
cheering the domestic circle, and shedding over it the mild radiance of the social 
virtues, instead of rushing into the fierce struggles of political life. He felt sorrow at 
this departure from their proper sphere, in which there was abundant room for the 
practice of the most extensive benevolence and philanthropy, because he considered it 
discreditable, not only to their own particular section of the country, but also to the 
national character, and thus giving him a right to express this opinion." 

Now, I say, in the first place, thaflhis principle is erroneous, vicious. 
Asa moral principle it is vicious; and in its application the chairman of 
the committee made it the ground of a reproach to the females of my 
district ; thousands of whom, besides those 238 who signed the first pe- 
tition I presented here, have signed similar petitions. That is his ap- 
plication. And what is the consequence intended to follow ? Why, that 
petitions of that sort deserve no consideration, and that the committee 
are, therefore, fully justified in never looking into one of them. And 
this, because they come from women; and women, departing from their 
own proper sphere, in the domestic circle, do what is discreditable, not 
only to their own particular district of country, but to the national char- 
acter. There is the broad principle, and there is its application. This 
has compelled me to probe it to the bottom, and to show that it is funda- 
mentally wrong, that it is vicious, and the very reverse of that which 
should prevail. 

Why does it follow that women are fitted for nothing but the cares of 
domestic life ? for bearing children, and cooking the food of a family 1 
devoting all their time to the domestic circle — to promoting the imme- 



68 

diate personal comfort ol tlieir husbands, !)rotliers, and sons? Observe, 
sir, the point of departure between the chairman of the conimiltee and 
myself. I admit that it is their duty to attend to these things, I sub- 
scribe, fully, to the elegant compliment passed by liim upon those mem- 
bers of the female sex who devote their time to these duties. But I say 
that the correct principle is, that women are not only justified, but ex- 
hibit the most exalted virtue when they do depart from the domestic 
circle, and enter on the concerns of their country, of humanity, and of 
their God. The mere departure of woman from the duties of the do- 
mestic circle, far from being a reproach to her, is a virtue of the highest 
order, wiien it is done from purity of motive, by appropriate means, and 
towards a virtuous purpose. There is the true distinction. The motive 
must be pure, the means appropriate, and the purpose good. And I say 
that woman, by the discharge of such duties, has manifested a virtue 
which is even above the virtues of mankind, and approaches to a supe- 
rior nature. That is the principle I maintain, and which the chairman 
of the committee has to refute, if he applies the position he has taken to 
the mothers, the sisters, and the daughters of the men of my district who 
voted to send me here. Now, I aver, further, that in the instance to 
which his observation refers, viz: in the act of petitioning against the 
annexation of Texas to this Union, the motive was pure, the means ap- 
propriate, and the purpose virtuous, in the highest degree. As an evidenl 
proof of this, I recur to the particular petition from which this debate 
took its rise, viz: to the first petition I presented here against the annex- 
ation — a petition consisting of tiiree lines, and signed by 238 women of 
Plymouth, a principal town in my own district. Their words are : 

" The undersigned, women of Plymouth, (Mass.,) thoroughly aware of the sinful- 
ness of slavery, and the consequent impolicy and disastrous tendency of its extension 
in our country, do most respectfully remonstrate, with all our souls, against the an- 
nexation of Texas to the United States, as a slaveholding territory." 

Those are the words of their memorial. And I say that, in present- 
ing it here, vheir motive was pure, and of the highest order of purity. 
They petitioned under a conviction that the consequence of the annexa- 
tion would be the advancement of that which is sin in the sight of God, viz : 
slavery. I say, further, that the means were appropriate, because it is 
Congress who must decide on the question ; and, theiefore, it is proper 
that they should petition Congress if they wisii to prevent the annexa- 
tion. And I say, in the third place, that the end was virtuous, pure, 
and of the most exalted character, viz: to prevent the perpetuation and 
spread of slavery through America. I say, moreover, that I subscribe, 
in my own person, to every word the petition contains. I do believe 
slavery to be a sin before God, and that is the reason, and the only in- 
surmountable reason why we should refuse to annex Texas to this Union. 
For, although the amendment 1 have moved declares that neither Con- 
gress nor any other portion of this Government is of itself competent to 
make such annexation, yet I hold it not impossible, with the consent of 
the People of the United States and of the People of Texas, that a union 
might properly be accomplished. It might be efifected by an amendment 
of the Constitution, submitted to the approval of the People of the United 
States, as all other amendments are to be submitted, and by afterward 
submitting the question to the decision of the People of both States, I 



69 

admit that in that way such a union niigiit be, and may be formed. But 
not witli a State tolerating slavery ; not with a People who have con- 
verted freemen into slaves; not so long as slavery exists in Texas. So 
long as that continues, I do not hold it practicable, in any form, that the 
two nations should ever be united. Thus far I go. I concur in every 
word of the petition I had the honor to present ; and I hold it to be a 
proof of pure patriotism, of sincere piety, and of every virtue that can 
adorn the female character. 

With regard to this principle I am willing it shall be discussed. I hope 
it will be discussed, not only in this House, but throughout this nntion. 
And, so long as no discussion is had upon it, this question of annexation 
cannot be properly treated. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Pickens] who said he was for taking issue with me, but who voted to 
close my mouth the moment I touched upon slavery, has told the House 
that he was voting on a mere question of order. Very well. He may 
vote against my being permitted so much as to name the subject, and 
when he comes after me, to show the advantages of the proposed an- 
nexation, he may himself enjoy a liberty of debate wide as the winds. 
But I warn him not to lay the flattering unction to his soul that he is to 
have full freedom, while another Is to have his mouth stopped the moment 
he attempts to open it in reply. The question is not so to be considered. 
After the manner in which I have been stopped and interrupted and cut 
off from the chief part of what 1 wished and intended to say, I shall con- 
sider it, and so will the People of this country consider it, a mockery to 
open the question on such terms. 

But, to come to the point of the petition, and to the principle laid down 
by the chairman. I inquired of him where he found it? In ancient his- 
tory 1 In the sacred history ? On that subject I adduced a few, out of 
the multitude of examples, where the action of women was held up as 
the highest virtue, and their interference ia politics was recorded with 
praise, even to the cutting off of the heads of the commanders of armies. 
And 1 then referred him to the fact that the greatest and most stupen- 
dous miracle ever performed by the Saviour while on earth was wrought 
at the petition of a woman. I called upon him for his recollections of 
the Roman history, and there I was stopped by the expiration of the 
hour. 

I now ask him, whether he does not remember Cloelia and her 
hundred companions, who swam across the river under a shower of 
enemy's darts, escaping from Porsenna 1 Has he forgotten Cornelia, the 
mother of the Gracchi, who declared that her children were her jewels? 
And why? Because they were the champions of freedom. Does he not 
remember Porna, the wife of Brutus, and daughter of Cato, and in what 
terms she is represented in the history of falling Rome ? Has he never 
read of Arria, the wife of Poetus, who, even under the imperial despot- 
ism, when her husband was condemned to die by the tyrant, plunged the 
sword into her own bosom, and, handing it to her husband, said, "take it, 
Poetus, it does not hurt !" and expired ? 

But let me come to a later period. What says the history of our 
Anglo-Saxon ancestors ? To say nothing of Boadicea, the British heroine 
in the time of the Caesars, what name is more illustrious than that of 
Elizabeth ? Or if he will go on the continent, will he not find the names 



70 

o( Maria Theresa of Hungary 1 the two Catherines of Russia ? anc' 
Isabella of Castile, the patroness of Columbus, the discoverer, in sub- 
stance, of this hemisphere, for without her that discovery would not have 
been made 1 Did she bring discredit on her sex by mingling in politics? 

And now, to come nearer home ; what were the women of these Uni- 
ted States in the struggle of the Revolution 1 Or what would the met? 
have been but for the influence of the women of that day 1 Were they 
devoted ezclusively to ihe duties and enjoyments of the fireside ? Noy 
sir ! Surely they never neglected them ; but they loved their country 
too ; they felt the impulse of patriotism, and manifested it in action ; they 
entered into the hottest political controversies of the time. Take for ex- 
ample the ladies of Philadelphia. I read from the Life of GenertH 
Greene, b}' an eminent citizen of South Carolina, Judge Johnson, (vol, 1, 
p. 196,) speaking of a trying period of the war : 

"Hear this from the pen of Washington. After complaining that his troops were 
generally destitute of shirts, and many of them of a more indispensable article of clo- 
thing, he proceeds : ' It is also most sincerely to be wished that there could be some sup- 
plies of clothing furnished to the officers. There are a great many whose condition 
is still miserable. This is, in some instances, the case with the whole line of the States. 
It will be well for their own sakes, and for the public good, if they could be furnish- 
ed. They will not be able, when our friends come to co-operate with us, to go on a 
common routine of duty ; and, if they should, they must, from their appearance, be 
held in low estimation.' 

' ' After this, the reader will not be surprised to learn that scandal whispered, it was 
not unusual to fit out the officer of the day by contributory loans, for the honor of a- 
regiment, or even a State ; and that, in one instance, there was but one suit of parade 
clothes in a whole regiment. And from whence did relief arrive at last ? From the 
heart where patriotism erects her favorite shrine, and from the hand which seldom is 
closed or withdrawn when the soldier solicits. 

' ' The ladies of Philadelphia immortalized themselves by commencing the generous 
work, and it was a work too grateful to the feelings of the American fair not to be fol- 
lowed up with zeal and alacrity. The profane pen of a Rivington may have sneer- 
ingly written that the linen of the fair one was converted into a corresponding garment 
to decorate the person or add to the comforts of a lover ; but the fear of ridicule shrunk 
away from the more interesting reflection, that soon it might be tinged with the heart's 
blood of the wearer. " 

I i^ave another instance to quote, and from another historian, also a 
citizen of Soutl) Carolina ; and it is exceeding!}' grateful to my heart ; 
because it speaks trumpct-tongued, not only of the tender and benevo- 
lent affections, but of the daring and intrepid spirit of patriotism burning 
in the bosoms of the ladies of that State, at the most disastrous and des- 
perate period of the war. Listen to Dr. Ramsay's History of the Revo- 
lution of South Carolina, (vol. 2, p. 123:) 

" Though numbers broke through the solemn ties by which they had voluntarily bound 
themselves to support the cause of America, illustrious sacrifices were made at the 
shrine of liberty ; several submitted to a distressing exile, or a more intolerable con- 
finement. The proprietors of some of the best estates in South Carolina suffered them 
to remcdn in the power and possession of the conquerors rather than stain their honor 
by deserting their country. The rich staked their fortunes, but in the humble walks 
of obscurity were found several of the middling and poorer class of citizens, who may 
be truly said to have staked their lives on the cause of America ; for they renounced 
the comforts subservient to health in warm climates, and contented themsebes with a 
scanty portion of the plainest necessaries of life, in preference to joining the enemies 
of independence. In this crisis of danger to the liberties of America, the ladies of 
South Carolina conducted themselves with more than Spartan magnanimity. They 
gloried in the appellation of iiebel ladies ; and though they withstood repeated soli- 



71 

citations to grace public entertainments with their presence, yet they crowded on board 
prison-ships, and other places of confinement, to solace their suffering countrymen. 
While the conquerors were regaling themselves at concerts and assemblies, they could 
obtain very few of the fair sex to associate with them ; but no sooner was an American 
officer introduced as a prisoner, than his company was sought for, and his person 
treated with every possible mark of attention and respect. On other occasions the 
ladies, in a great measure, retired from the public eye, wept over the distresses of their 
countrj', and gave every proof of the warmest attachment to its suffering cause. In 
the height of the British conquests, when poverty and ruin seemed the unavoidable 
portion of every adherent to the independence of America, the ladies, in general, dis- 
covered more firmness than the men. Many of them, like guardian angels, preserved 
their husbands from falling, in the hour of temptation, when interest and conve- 
nience had almost gotten the better of honor and patriotism. Among the num- 
bers who were banished from their families, and whose property was seized by 
the conquerors, many examples could be produced of ladies cheerfully parting with 
their sons, husbands, and brothers, exhorting them to fortitude and perseverance, and 
repeatedly entreating them never to suffer family attachments to interfere with the 
duty they owed to their country. When, in the progress of the war, they were also 
comprehended under a general sentence of banishment, with equal resolution they 
parted with their native country, and the many endearments of home, followed their 
husbands into prison-ships and distant lands, where, though they had long been in the 
habit of giving, they were reduced to the necessity of receiving charity. They re- 
nounced the present gratifications of wealth, and the future prospects of fortunes for 
their growing offspring, adopted every scheme of economy, and, though born in afflu- 
ence, and habituated to attendance, betook themselves to hard labor." 

Politics, sir! rushing into the vortex of politics! glorying in being 
called Rebel ladies ! refusing to atend balls and entertainments, but crowd- 
ing to the prison-ships ! mark this ; and remember that it was done with 
no small danger 1o their own persons, and to the safety of their families- 
But it manifested the spirit by which they were animated. And, sir, is 
that spirit to be charged, here, in this hall, where we are sitting, as being 
discreditable to the country's name? Are we to be told this? Shall it 
be said here that such conduct was a national reproach, because it was 
the conduct of women, who left their " domestic concerns," and " rushed 
into the voriex of politics?" Sir, these women did more; they petu 
fioned; yes, they petitioned — and that in a matter of politics. And 
what was that matter of politics? It was the life of Hayne. 

"The royal Lieutenant Governor Bull, and a great number of inhabitants, both 
loyalists and Americans, interceded for his life. The ladies of Charleston, generally, 
signed a petition in his behalf, in which was introduced every delicate sentiment that 
was likely to operate on the gallantry of officers or the humanitj' of men. His children, 
accompanied by some near relation, were presented on their bended knees as humble 
suitors for their father's life. Such powerful intercessions were made in his favor as 
touched many an unfeeling heart, and drew tears from many a hard eye ; but Lord 
Rawdon and Lieutenant Colonel Balfour remained inflexible." (Ramsay, vol. 2, p. 282.) 

Where is the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations ? [Mr. 
Howard was not in the House,] I want him to discuss this point. Here 
were women who entered deeply into concerns relating to their country, 
and felt that they had other duties to perform, besides those to the do- 
mestic comforts of tlicir husbands, brothers, and sons. They petitioned ! 
I want him to listen to their petition, all glorious to their memories as 
it is ! I am sure, if he would listen to it, he would not, like Rawdon and 
Bnlfour, remain inflexible. 

Here it is: 



72 

* To the Right Honorable. Lord Rawdon, Commander-in-chief of his Majesty's 
forces in South Carolina, and fo Colonel Balfour, Commander at Charleston .• 
" My Loud axd Sis : We should have reason to reproach ourselves for having 
omitted a proper occasion of manifesting the tenderness peculiarly characteristic of oui 
sex, if we did not profess ourselves deeply interested and affected by the imminent 
and shocking doom of the most unfortunate Mr. Hayne ; and if wo did not entreat 
you in the most earnest manner gTaciously to arrest, prolong, or mitigate. We do 
not think, much less do we intend to imply, in the remotest degree, that your sentence 
is unjust; but we are induced to hope that every end it proposes may be equally an- 
swered as if earned into execution ; for to us it does not appear probable that any 
whom it is intended to influence and deter from similar delinquency will be encouraged 
with the hope of impunity by reason of any favors shown him, as they must surely 
reflect that it was owing to certain causes and circumstances that will not apply to 
them. We presume to make this intercession for him, and to hope that it will not 
prove fruitless, from the knowledge of your dispositions in particular, as well as from 
the reflection in general that humanity is rarely separable from courage, and that the 
gallant soldier feels as much reluctance to cause, by deliberate degrees, the infliction 
of death on men in cold blood, as he does ardor in the day of battle and heat of ac- 
tion to make the enemies of his country perish by the sword. He may rejoice to be- 
hold his laurels sprinkled with the blood of armed and resisting adversaries, but will 
regret to see them wet with the tears of unhappy orphans, mourning the loss of a 
tender, amiable, and worthy parent, executed like a vile and infamous felon. 

' ' To the praises that men who have been witnesses and sharers of your dangers and 
services in the field may sound of your' military virtues and prowess, we trust you 
will give the ladies occasion to add the praises of your milder and softer virtues by 
furnishing them with a striking proof of your clemency and politeness in the present 
instance. May the unhappy object of our petition owe to that clemency and polite- 
ness, to our prayers, and to his own merits, in other respects, what you may think 
him not entitled to, if policy and justice were not outweighed in his behalf. To any 
other men in power than such as we conceive you both to be, we should employ on 
the occasion more ingenuity and art to dress up and enforce the many pathetic and 
favorable circumstances attending his case, in order to move your passions and engage 
your favor; but we think this will be needless, and is obviated by your own spontane- 
ous feeling, humane considerations, and liberal reasonings. Nor shall we dwell on 
his most excellent character, the outrages and excesses, and perhaps murders, pre- 
vented by him, to which innocent and unarmed individuals were exposed in an ex- 
tensive manner ; nor shall we here lay any stress on the most grievous shock his 
numerous and respectable connexions must sustain by his death, aggravated by the 
mode of it ; nor shall we do more than remind you of the comphcated distress and 
suffering that must befall his young and promising children, to whom, perhaps, death 
would be more comfortable than the state of orphanage they will be left in. All these 
things, we understand, have been already represented, and we are sure will have their 
due weight with men of your humane and benevolent minds. Many of us have al- 
ready subscribed to a former petition for him, and hope you will regard our doing it 
again, not as importunity, but earnestness, and we pray most fervently that you will 
forever greatly oblige us by not letting us do it in vain. 

"We are, my lord and sir, with all respect, your very anxious petitioners and 
humble servants." 

If lli«re be a member oi" ibis House ulio, after wbsit I bave s;ii(J, could 
retain a particle of beliei" in iho doctrine tbat it is a reproacli to tbe na- 
tion for women lo present petitions on public affairs, let bim lake ibis 
petition and read it, and J am siu'e be cannot retain the sentiment. 

[ will refer the Honse to only, one example more. This House, not 
long since, voted a pension to Benjamin Gannett, tbe husband of 
Deborah Gannett, and tbat on the ground of the merits of his deceased 
wife. The chairman of the committee thinks it a reproach to a woman 
even to petition on a matter of politics; but this Deborah Gannett not 
only did as much as this, but " rushed into the vortex of politic!=," to 



73 

the extent of exposing her person, down to the close of our Revolu- 
tionary war. And what says the report of the committee on her case? 

"The committee are aware that there is no act of Congress wWch provides for anj 
case like the present. The said Gannett was married after the termination of the war 
of the Eevolution, and therefore does not come within the spirit of the third section 
of the act of 4th July, 1836, granting pensions to widows in certain cases; and were 
there nothing peculiar in this apphcation which distinguishes it from all other applica- 
tions for pensions, the committee would at once reject the claim. But they believe 
they are warranted in saying that the whole history of the American Revolution 
records no case like this, and ' funiishes no other similar example of female heroism, 
fidelity, and courage.' The petitionee does not allege that he served in the war of 
the Revolution, and it does not appear by any evidence in the case that such was the 
fact. It is not, however, to be presumed that a female who took up anns in defence 
of her country, who served as a common soldier for nearly three years, emd fought 
and bled for human liberty, would, immediately after the termination of the war, con- 
nect herself for life with a tory or a traitor. He, indeed, was honored much hy be- 
ing the husband of such a wife ; and as he has proved himself worthy of her, as he 
has sustamed her through a long hfe of sickness and suffering, and as that sickness 
and suffering were occasioned by the wounds she received, and the haidships she en- 
dured ui the defence of the covmtry, and as there cannot be a parallel case in all time 
to come, the committee do not hesitate to grant relief. 

"They report a bill granting to the petitioner a pension of §80 per year from the 
4th day of March, 1831, for and during his natural life." 

Where, I ask again, is the chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs? [A laugh.] 

That is a sentiment honorable to this House, and to this country. Sir, 
if I were allowed to present a case of fiction here, it would be impossible 
for me to imagine one containing a principle more completely opposite 
to that laid down by the chairman of the committee. Does this report 
declare that heroism, that fidelity, in the case of a woman, is a reproach 
to iier, and to her country? Mo; it is a virtue of supererogation, of the 
very highest and noblest order. 

I close, here, my remarks on that clause of the speech of the honora- 
ble chairman which to me appears so exceptionable. 1 take issue with 
him on that assertion. I affirm that directly the reverse of his position 
is true. Agreeing with him entirely as to what are the most appropriate 
duties of the female sex, I differ from him as much in what he infers 
from them ; and I say that if they depart from their djjties of a domestic 
character, from pure motives, by appropriate means, and for a good end, 
it is virtue, and the highest virtue. 

I should not have detained the House so long in establishing this posi- 
tion, had I not felt it a duty I owed to my constituents,' to vindicate the 
characters of their wives and sisters and daughters, who were assailed 
by the sentiment I have opposed. 

And now, to close with a little anecdote, which I hope will put the 
House into a good humor. In consequence of the stand I have taken 
here, on the subject of the right of petition, a great number of petitions 
and memorials have been sent to me, many of which I did not present; 
some were sent with a sinister purpose — to make me ridiculous, or the 
right of petition ridiculous. Others were of a more atrocious character, 
and the language in which they were expressed would have, of itself, 
precluded their reception here. But there is one from a man whom I 
take to be a profound humorist, and a keen and deep satirist. His peti- 
tion is, that Congress would enter into negotiations with the Queen of 



74 

Great Britain, to prevail on her to abdicate the throne of that nation. 
And why ? Because affairs of state do not belong to women. Now, if 
this petition had been sent to the honorable chairman of the Committee 
on Foreign Relations, I really do not see, with his notions, how he could 
have refused to present it. [A laugh.] But I declined the presentation 
of it, because I feared that there might be a portion of the House who 
would not perceive in such a petition the satire which I thought was in- 
tended to be conveyed by it, and might think it was intended as a serious 
proposition. I do not intend to put the House to the trial of that matter ; 
or myself in an attitude of coming under the censure of this House, for 
treason, in offering such advice to the President; or at least as becom- 
ing the cause of a war with England. For when the Government of one 
country addresses the Sovereign of another, with a request lo abdicate 
the throne, it is a pretty serious affair. In that point of view, it was 
impossible for me to present the paper; but, in the other, 1 think I 
might have done so, with great propriety and effect. And even now, as 
the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs appears to sympa- 
thize in feeling and sentiment with the petitioner, if he thinks it might 
be serviceable to present the paper, I will cheerfully communicate it to 
him. [A laugh.] 

There is another, and an equally grave division of the subject, yet to 
enter upon ; but, as the hour is nearly expired, I will, for the present, 
relieve the House. 

Friday, June 29, 1838. 
The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texas bemg again 
under consideration as the unfinished business of the morning hour — 

Mr. Adams resumed his remarks, and said, that the time, the day be- 
fore, had been consumed by him in reply to so much of the speech of the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs as reflected upon the 
women of Massachusetts, his own constituents, as having disgraced their 
country and themselves by sending their petitions to Congress against the 
annexation of Texas to the United States. He regretted that the chair- 
man had not been in his seat at the time, to meet his explicit denial of 
this position, and his assertion that the expression of such a principle was 
a cruel outrage upon the rights of one half the People of this country, 
wholly unworthy the person from whom it had emanated — a gentleman 
whose whole personal character seemed to him (Mr. A.) to be most 
abhorrent to the political principles he had laid down : that the petitions 
of women are to be treated with scorn and contempt by the House of 
Representatives, to whom they are addressed, on the ground that their 
conduct in signing such petitions is discreditable and disgraceful, not only 
to themselves and to that part of the country in which they live, but to 
the whole nation. 

Mr. Adams expressed a hope that no member ot the House would 
think this a light question, entering as it did into the very utmost depths 
of the Constitution of the country, and affecting not only the polUica! 
rights of one half of the People of the nation, but seriously affecting the 
sex which is entitled to the respect and protection of the laws, and of 
those who make the laws; entitled to kind and respectful treatment at 



75 

their hands, and not reproaches like those which the gentleman fron^ 
Maryland [Mr. Howard] had dared to heap upon them. 

That particular point of the subject in debate which was discussed 
yesterday, when the honorable member was not in bis place, had been 
commenced the day preceding, when he was present. He heard him 
(Mr. A.) read a passage from his [Mr. H's] reported speech, and had 
heard him take issue with him upon that passage, and cite passages 
from ancient history, scriptural and profane, in opposition to the prin- 
ciple advanced in that part of his speech. Yesterda}', in his al>sence, 
he (Mr. A.) had continued to cite examples from history, from the 
days of old Rome down to the case of Deborah Gannett, to whose 
surviving husband a pension for her Revolutionary services and suffer- 
ings had, within a week, been granted by that House ; in the commit^ 
tee's report upon which latter case there was a distinct recognition and 
averment of a principle precisely the reverse of that laid down by the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the passage of his 
speech alluded to. And there had been some of these examples which 
had been of a character peculiarly interesting to different members of 
that body, from local and sectional as well as patriotic associations. He 
had read from Johnson's Life of General Greene a tribute to the ladies 
of Philadelphia, and from Ramsay, one to the ladies of Charleston, South 
Carolina, for their noble public services during those " times that tried 
men's souls." But there was one other instance which he might have, 
and, had the gentleman from Maryland been present, he should have 
cited; but which, not then having done so, he would now adduce, and 
ask for it the gentleman's particular attention. He would read from 
Marshall's Washington the following passage : 

'*It is not unworthy of notice that the ladies of Baltimore charged themselves with 
the toil of immediately making up the summer clothing for the troops. Innumerable 
instances of their zeal in the common cause of their country were given in every State 
of the Union." 

Sir, (continued Mr. Adams,) was it from the lips of a son of one of 
the most distinguished of those ladies of Baltimore — -was it from the 
lips of a descendant of one of tlie most illustrious officers in that war that 
we now hear the annunciation that the political and public services of 
women are to be treated with contempt? Sir, I do hope that that honor- 
able gentleman, [Mr. Howard,] when he shall reply to this part of my 
argument, will modify his opinions upon this point. 

yiv. Howakd here rose and said that, as he should probably have no op- 
portunity to reply, he begged permission to say a word or two upon the case 
which the gentleman from Massachusetts had brought before the House. 

Mr. Adams having yielded the floor for that purpose, 

Mr. Howard said that the case of the ladies of Baltimore, when they 
exerted themselves to supply the army of Lafayette with clothes in the 
Revolutionary war, was not new to him. His (Mr. H's) children had in 
their veins the blood of one of those who was amongst the most zealous 
in this patriotic effort ; but he saw not the slightest resemblance between 
their conduct, upon that memorable occasion, and that of the females 
who were petitioning Congress against the admission of a State into the 
Union. When the relatives and friends of women are in the field, strug- 
gling amidst perils and sufferings for the independence of the country, 



76 

undergoing all sorts of hardships and privations, without snfficient food 
or raiment, nothing conld be more becoming to the female character than 
that, by the exercise of their needle, or influence, or industry, they should 
try to alleviate the toils of their gallant defenders. He disclaimed utter- 
ly all similarity between the cases, and protested against classifying those 
generous and patriotic ladies with the petitioners about Texas ; and whilst 
he was on the floor, he would say further, that the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts might find more appropriate models to hold up for imitation to 
the modest and virtuous girls of New England than the two which he had 
selected from ancient and modern history — one of whom, Aspasia, was 
notorious for the profligacy of her life ; and the other a woman who had 
usurped the habiliments of the other sex, and, in man's dress, associated 
with men for years together. He believed that the females of New Eng- 
land would not relish either of these examples. 

Mr. Adams then resumed, and said he was glad to find that the chair- 
man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs had abandoned his former 
ground, and conceded the unsoundness of his principles. 
Mr. Howard denied that he had done so. 

Mr. Adams averred that the gentleman /«ari done so. What he had said 
upon the occasion adverted to was on record. Let it be compared with 
the concessions he now makes, in the case of the women of the Revolution- 
ary times. He concedes the principle in the case of the Baltimore 
ladies, though he adheres to it afterwaids in that of Deborah Gannett. 
In connexion with the latter case, he (Mr. A.) would leave the gentle- 
man from Maryland to the gallant chairman of the Committee on Revo- 
lutionary Claims, [Mr. Morgan,] whose report, in that case, had been 
alluded to, as conveying a principle directly the reverse of that assumed 
by the gentleman from Maryland. 

But, (continued Mr. A.,) that honorable gentleman is pleased to take 
great exception to my citation of the example of Aspasia. Mr. A. would 
not enter into a discussion of Grecian history with Mr. H. Aspasia's 
was certainly an illustrious name in that history, and one with regard to 
which historians differed not a little on many points. Perhaps the in- 
stance was an ill-chosen one for the purposes of the present argument. 
Perhaps it was not. But if it was, he was glad that but a single instance 
could be excepted to of all that had been adduced by way of illustrating 
the position which he (Mr. A.) had taken in this discussion. The 
character of Aspasia was to be viewed in connexion with the opinions of 
the age and the country in which she lived. Those opinions, with regard 
to women, were not unlike those still entertained by the Turks, that wo- 
men have no souls ; opinions, he would say, which differed but little from 
what seemed to be those of the gentleman from Maryland, as declared 
upon a former day. Those opinions were not, however, he believed and 
trusted, the sentiments of the nation generally. They reflected cruelly 
on the conduct and character of fifty thousand of the women of tiiis Re- 
public, one fifth of which number belonged to his (Mr. A's) own district ; 
women, than whom, out of the whole world, he defied the gentleman 
from Maryland to find others purer, more intelligent, and more patriotic. 
And the right to petition, according to the gentleman, (said Mr. A.,) is 
to be denied to women because they have no right to vote ! Is it so 
clear that they have no such right as this last? And if not, who shall 



77 

say tliat this argument of the gentleman's is not adding one injustice to 
another'? One would imagine, while listening to this argument, that ihe 
gentleman was thinking of his election 1 He (Mr. A.) would do him [Mr, 
Howard] the justice to say that he did not believe that these were the 
unbiased opinions of his heart. He must have entertained different 
principles upon this subject until this political slavery question came up 
to influence and to pervert them. And this Mr. A. said he considered 
as one of the worst effects of that gangrene of politics whicli has infected, 
and which, to an alarming degree, still infects the country. Were it not 
for the operation of this, Mr. A. believed that the gentleman from Mary- 
land [Mr. Howard] would as soon have sacrificed his life as made the 
declarations he had done upon this subject. 

[Here the morning hour expiring, the orders of the day were called 
for, and Mr. Adams suspended his remarks until the next day.] 

Saturday, June 80, 1838. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texas being again 
under consideration as the unfinished business of the morning hour ; and 

Mr. Potter having stated that, in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, a joint reso- 
1 ution had been introduced instructing their Senators and requesting their Representa- 
tives in Congress to oppose the annexation of Texas, and that it had passed the 
Senate by a vote of 22 to 6, but had, in the lower House, been indefinitely postponed 
by a vote of 41 to 38, the majority consisting of the friends of the present Adminis 
tration— 

Mr. Adams said that he considered the proceedings in the Pennsylva- 
nia Legislature, which the gentleman from tliat State had just mention- 
ed, as proving, 1st, that the feelings and opinions of an immense majority 
of the People of Pennsylvania were opposed to the annexation of Texas 
to this Union, since, in the Senate, the vote against it had been over- 
whelming, 22 in favor, and only 6 being opposed to the resolution : but 
when the matter came into the other branch, it was indefinitely post- 
poned by a majority of only 2, and this by a strict party vote, all the 
friends of the Administration voting in the affirmative, and all the mem- 
bers of the Opposition in the negative. The whole statement therefore 
went to prove that, in the State of Pennsylvania, as in the State of New- 
York, the opinions and wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Peo- 
ple were decidedly opposed to tlie admission of this foreign State into 
the Union ; while the controlling and checking of this force of public 
opinion, so far as party could check and control it, was the work of the 
friends of the existing Administration. 

But passing from that, (said Mr. A.,) I return to the subject on which 
I was speaking when last I addressed the House, viz : the depriving of 
one half the People of the United States of the right to petition Con- 
gress ; that half consisting, too, of the tender sex, whose very weakness 
should entitle them to the most scrupulous regard to all their rights. It 
was true that the right had not been directly and in terms contested by 
the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations : but he had rep- 
resented the exercise of it as disgraceful to those women who petitioned, 
and as discreditable to their own section of the Union, and to the nation 
at large. Now to say, respecting women, that any action of theirs was 



78 

disgraceful, was more than merely contesting their legal right so to act: 
it was contesting the right of the mind, of the soul, and the conscience. 
It was on this account that Mr. A. had felt himself bound to take issue 
with the honorable chairman on that principle, and to show that the very 
reverse was true, and that the right of petition is as strong and as whole 
and perfect in women as in the stronger sex. [Mr. A. here recapitulated 
the grounds ho had taken, stating again the precise position on which he 
took his stand.] As to the illustrations from ancient and from modern 
history which I adduced, to show that the sense of all mankind, as well 
in ancient as in modern times, has ever been, and still is, on the side of 
my position, I shall not at this time go further. Yesterday I referred to 
one glorious instance of departure from the exclusive duties of the do- 
mestic circle, in the case of the ladies of Baltimore, who rendered them- 
selves illustrious, and obtained a memorial in the history of their country 
by going directly in the face of the principle laid down by the chairman 
of the committee, a native of that city, and one of their own sons. 

I will now only recur to one more example, originating in a State very 
deeply concerned in this question; I mean the State of South Carolina. 

Sir, I said that with this hand I have had the honor to present the 
memorials, petitions, and remonstrances, of more than fifty thousand 
women, in this House, and on this subject ; as many, probably, as ten 
thousand of them being inhabitants of my own district ; which circum- 
stance imposed on me a double, nay, a triple necessity of defending 
them and their character against the assault of the honorable chairman. 
But it so happens, that of the signatures to the 50,000 petitions, I do 
believe, in my conscience, that four fifths, at least, have been obtained 
by the influence of two women of South Carolina, natives of that State ; 
from their position, well acquainted with the practical operation of 
the system ; intelligent, well educated, highly accomplished, and bearing 
a name which South Carolina will not disown. To these two women is 
their country indebted for a vast proportion of all the petitions coming 
from their sex in New England, on the subject of the Texian annexation. 
Their own names are attached to one of these petitions; and they are 
almost the only ones with which I have the honor to be personally ac- 
quainted. I say I have that honor; for I deem it an honor. But their 
right to petition this House on the annexation of Texas, as well as on 
the subject of slavery itself, its moral character as a system, its political 
character, and its influence on the history of mankind, has been openly 
denied. Tf there is a gentleman from South Carolina here who is anx- 
ious for a correspondence with those ladies for the purpose of a discus- 
sion of either or of all those points, I can answer for those ladies that it 
will be in his power to obtain what he wishes. And if he does enter on 
the discussion, all I shall say is that I wish him well out of it. [A 
laugh.] 

[Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, here rose to explain. The gentle- 
man from Massachusetts has alluded to two ladies of my own State, and, 
as I understand, to certain statements of theirs which have appeared in 
the papers, and has spoken of their character in very exalted terms, and 
I do not in the least dispute what he has said ; but I take this occasion to 
say that I have read the statements alluded to ; and, though I know 
nothing personally respecting the ladies who have put them forth, I must 



79 

say that I never saw such a tissue of prejudice and misrepresentation as 
is now going the rounds of tiie public papers under their names. I have 
held it my duty to say this, though I do it with reluctance and regret, 
in order to prevent any false conclusion which might be drawn from the 
silence of the Representatives of that State after what has been said 
by that gentleman.] 

Mr. Adams. Well ; the gentleman admits he has no personal ac- 
quaintance with these ladies; and he has not ventured to impeach their 
characters, or denied that they bear a name which South Carolina will 
not disown. He says, however, that he has read their representations, 
as contained in the public journals, and that they are a tissue of preju- 
dice and misrepresentation. I wish, if the gentleman pleases, that he 
will be so good as to specify the particular misrepresentations with which 
he charges these ladies, and each of them. He admits that their char- 
acters are of an exalted description; yet what they have given to the 
world is, it seems, a tissue of misrepresentation. Sir, the gentleman 
himself is in the case of many and many a slaveholder ; he knows noth- 
ing of the real operation of the system. He speaks of what is known 
to him. I do not doubt in the least that he is, himself, a kind and indul- 
gent master; so, I doubt not, are all the gentlemen who represent his 
State on this floor. They know not the horrors ihat belong to the 
system, and attend it even in their own State; and when they are stated 
by those who have witnessed them, he calls the whole a tissue of misrep- 
resentation. But, sir, 1 put him on the issue of the facts, now made up 
between him and those ladies. I doubt not, 1 deny not, the accuracy of 
his own representations, so far as he knows of them ; but he does not 
know the cruel, the tyrannical, the hard-hearted master. He does not 
know the profligate villain who procreates children from his slaves, and 
then sells his own children as slaves. He does not know the crushing 
and destruction of all the tenderest and holiest ties of nature which that 
system produces, but which I have seen, with my own eyes, in this city 
of Washington. Twelve months have not passed since a woman, in this 
District, was taken with her four infant children, and separated from her 
husband, who was a free man, to be sent away, I know not where. 
That woman, in a dungeon in Alexandria, killed with her own hand two 
of her children, and attempted to kill the others. She was tried for 
murder, and, to the honor of human nature I say it, a jury was not to be 
found in the District who would find her guilty. What was the conse- 
quence ? A suit at law between the purchaser and the seller of the slave. 
The purchaser considering the contract violated, because the slave had 
been warranted sound in body and mind, whereas the jury found a ver- 
dict declaring her insane; which insanity they inferred from the fact of 
her having killed her own children. Sir, it was the verdict of an honest 
jury. The act was not murder, 1 have seen the woman and her sur- 
viving children. She attempted to kill the other two, but they were 
saved from her hands, and I hope are now free. I say the jury was an 
honest jury. They did not dare to convict her of murder, though the fact 
that she killed her children with her own hand was clearly demonstrated 
before them. The woman was asked how she could perpetrate such an 
act, for she had been a woman of unblemished character and of pious 
sentiments. She replied, that wrong had been done to her and to them ; 



80 

that she was enliiled to her freedom, tliough she had been sold to go to 
Georgia ; and that she had sent her children to a better world. The 
)ury took testimony as to her state of mind ; for they were desirous to 
find, if possible, that she was insane. 

Mr. Legare, of South Carolina, here rose and culled Mr. A. to order. 
What he was talking about had nothing to do with the question before 
the House, which was the annexation of Texas to the United States. 

Mr. Elmore requested his colleague to let the gentleman go on with 
his insane ravings. 

The Chair said it was within the limits of order to give reasons why 
Texas should not be annexed to this Union ; but in stating those reasons 
there must be some limit; the matters stated must have a connexion with 
the subject ; when that was wanting, they ceased to be in order. It was 
a delicate and diflficult task to draw the precise line ; he hoped the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts would do this for himself, without the neces- 
sity of being checked by the Chair. 

Mr. Adams. I had but a little more to state. The woman was ac- 
quitted, as I have said, on the ground of insanity ; and I have seen the 
testimony on which that verdict was founded. It consisted of testimony 
in vague and indefinite terms, and mainly of the testimony of another 
colored woman, who stated on her oath that she did believe the woman 
not to be of sane mind. She was asked, why? Her answer was con- 
clusive ; she asked, " would a mother that was of sane mind kill her 
own children V alleging the fact itself as the chief foundation of her 
belief. That was all the answer she gave, and the jury, on that reply, 
and other testimony of a similar character, acquitted the prisoner. 

Here is a single incident in the history of slavery in this District of 
Columbia, of which I speak, because I was a witness to it. And now, 
sir, if this debate shall be properly reported, (as I have no doubt it will 
be,) and shall go throughout this country, I do not doubt but through the 
whole Southern portion of the Union there will be raised one universal 
shout, that the whole statement is " a tissue of prejudice and misrepre- 
sentation !" 

I have stated all this in reply to the gentleman from South Carolina, 
who has told us that similar statements made by those two distinguished 
Jadies of South Carolina whom I have referred to are one tissue of mis- 
representation and prejudice. I, for one, believe in the whole " tissue" of 
facts stated by those ladies in communications addressed to their sisters 
in a different part of the Union. They are precisely that kind of mis- 
representation a sample of which I have now given to this House in the 
facts I have stated. This I say, calling on that gentleman, or any other 
gentleman from that State, in answer to these insane ravings of mine, to 
state facts, and bring the proof that what I have stated is " a tissue of 
misrepresentation." I say that this story is but one of multitudes of the 
same kind, not perhaps equally horrible, but all of the same moral com- 
plexion, pervading that entire portion of the Union where man is held 
in slavery to man. 

But this is a digression. 

The crime of the petitioners whose memorials 1 have presented here, 
has been the signing of these memorials, which they did on the principle 
thai the annexation of Texas cannot take place without extending and 



81 

perpetuating the horrible system of which I have given to the House 
some of the native fruits, and those ladies of South Carolina have given 
many more. Their crime has been merely the signing of petitions 
against admitting Texas into the Union, because it will extend and per- 
petuate slavery. 1 say it is no crime. 1 say it is not discreditable to 
those ladies. I say it is directly the reverse, being, on the contrary, 
highly honorable to them. 

I do not, however, mean to be understood as countenancing the gen- 
eral idea that it is proper, on ordinary occasions, for women to step with- 
out the circle of their domestic duties. I do not so consider it : and 1 
say that, when they do so depart from their ordinary and appropriate 
sphere of action, you are to inquire into the motive which actuated them, 
the means they employ, and the end they have in view. I say further, 
that, in the present case, all these, as well ihe motive as the means and 
the end, were just and proper. It is a petition — it is a prayer — a sup- 
plication — that which you address to the Almighty Being above you. 
And what can be more appropriate to their aex 1 Sir, it has occurred 
to me, wheii I have observed the attitude in which the slaveholder stands 
before this House, in comparison with that which these women have as- 
sumed in regard to it, that they present the personification of two of the 
Passions which has been drawn by one of the greatest poets of England. 
In his celebrated Ode to the Passions he gives to those which are of a 
harsh, strong, and rigorous character, the male sex ; while those of a 
soft, amiable, and tender kind, he represents as women. After a descrip- 
tion of Hope, as occupied in charming herself and all about her with 
her song, he adds : 

" And longer had she sung — but, with a frown, 

Revenge impatient rose. 
He threw his blood-stained sword in thunder down, 

And with a withering look 

The war-denouncing trumpet took. 
And blew a blast sfi loud and dread, 
Were ne'er prophetic sounds so full of wo. 

And ever and anon he beat 

The doubling drum with furious heat ; 
And tho', sometimes, each dreary pause between, 

Dejected Pitt at his side 

Her soul-subduing voice applied, 
Yet still he kept his wild, unalter'd mien, 
While each strained ball of sight seemed bursting from his head. " 

There is the slaveholder, and there is the female petitioner against the 
annexation of Texas. 

[Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina, rose, and said that, as there 
would probably be no opportunity of replying to the gentleman during 
the present session, he would, with his permission, request a reconcile- 
ment of what appeared to be an inconsistency in his argument. 

The gentleman had said that the most important objection to the an- 
nexation of Texas was the existence of slavery in that Republic. Now, 
it must be evident to every gentleman, that slavery will exist in Texas, 
whether she is annexed to this country or not. If annexed, her supply 
of slaves must be drawn exclusively from the United States ; if not an- 
nexed, her supply will be derived not from the United States only, but, 
also, from the Spanish West India Islands, and directly from Africa. 
6 



32 

Thus, in opposing the annexation of Tnxas upon the ground of slavery, 
the gentleman pursues a course that will increase instead of diminish the 
number of sUxves ; and is, in effect, an advocate for the African slave 
trade.] 

Mr. Adams. It is not difficult to answer tlie gentleman's questions, 
I believe, if Texas is not annexed to ii)is Union, that the time is not re- 
mote when there will not be a slave either in these States or in Texas. 
I believe that, if Texas is excluded, in the first place she will operate 
as a drain for the slaves from South Carolina ; and that that State will 
be so drained of its slave population that the white inhabitants, inclu- 
ding the gentleman and his friends, will be the first to urge the propriety of 
abolition. [Here many Southern gentlemen laughed.] It is so now in the 
West Indies. The slaveholders themselves are the first to emancipate 
their slaves, after having once tried the experiment of the effects of 
freedom. 1 say that, when the slaves shall have, to a great extent, been 
drained off, the interest of the slaveholder will prompt him to do the same 
thing here. It will then be his interest, as it is now his duty, to put an 
end to the whole sj'stem. And, if it shall once be abolished there — as 
in my prayers to Almighty God I nightly and daily invoke Him that it 
naay be — slavery in Texas will fall of itself. A slave State, like Texas, 
could not exist between two States like this Union and Mexico, both 
free. But if Texas is to be admitted ; and if we are to hear lessons in 
philosophy, such as we have lately had addressed to us, teaching that 
slavery is a blessing and a virtue ; if, I say, we are to have schools where 
it shall be taught to our children and youth that slaves ;i'«e chattels — that 
slavery is a benevolent institution of God — and this shal Se accompanied 
by the decree of a sovereign State, making it death to dc \y the doctrine — 
then, indeed, I believe that slavery will not be confined to the States 
south of the Potomac ; and tlie inevitable consequence will be, that all 
laws against the slave trade are cruel and tyrannical, and that the slave 
trade ought to be restored. 

[Mr. Campbell again rose, and, after denying that the inconsistency 
had been reconciled, said that, as he was up, he would take the liberty 
of informing the gentleman of another fact, of which he was probably not 
aware. The discussion of this subject (slavery) here and elsewhere, by 
himself and others, had tended to rivet the system that their false and 
impracticable philanthropy would remove ; for while they had succeeded 
in producing agitation, and compelled many to dread this wretched fa- 
naticism as the rock upon which the Union, and with it the fairest hopes 
that ever warmed the breast of the patriot, may ultimately be wrecked, 
they bad, also, been the means of directing a more general inquiry into 
the subject, which had resulted in the almost universal conviction at the 
South, that slavery, as it existed there, was neither a moral nor a politi- 
cal evil. Thus many worthy men, who were formerly somewhat uneasy 
at the existence of this institution, now feel themselves called upon by 
every motive, personal and private, by every consideration, public and 
patriotic, to guard it with the most jealous watchfulness — to defend it at 
every hazard.] 

Mr. Adams. I am happy to hear what the gentleman has to observe 
and equally happy to answer him. I thought I had given him an answer 
pretty directly in point. If slavery ceases in Texas, she will not get 



83 

ler slaves from any place. Is that no answer? But as to the theory 
which he now advances, if it be true, then the more slaves the better ; 
and whether Texas shall get them from the United States or from 
Africa, is only a question of avarice, as to who shall breed these human 
chattels. The direct consequence of his theory is, that the slave trade 
ought to be encouraged. It is a good thing. The more slaves the better. 
It is a benefit to them to be brought from Africa into this Christian coun- 
try — a great benefit ; and, therefore, it ought to be made as extensive as 
possible. I say that that is a good and logical conclusion from the gen- 
tleman's premises. I am well aware of the change which is taking place 
in the moral and political philosophy of the South. I know well that 
the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, that " all men are born 
free and equal," is there held as incendiary doctrine, and deserves Lynch- 
ing ; that the Declaration itself is a farrago of abstractions. I know all 
this perfectly ; and that is the very reason that 1 want to put my foot 
upon such doctrine ; that I want to drive it back to its fountain — its cor- 
rupt fountain — and pursue it till it is made to disappear from this land, 
and from the world. Sir, this philosophy of the South has done more to 
blacken the character of this country in Europe than all other causes put 
together. They point to us as a nation of liars and hypocrites, who pub- 
lish to the world that all men are born free and equal, and then hold a 
large portion of our own population in bondage. 

But I have been drawn into observations which are here very much 
out of place ; and which I should probably not have made, and certainly 
not with the force I have endeavored to give them, had it not been for 
the interruption of the gentleman from South Carolina. If he will put 
such questions, he must expect to receive answers corresponding to them ; 
and he will receive not only ray answers, but those of others, who are 
far deeper thinkers than I, not only in this country, but abroad ; for this 
debate will go on the wings of the wind. The account of the gentleman's 
principles will come back from all parts of Europe and of the civilized 
world in hisses and execrations, that a man should have been found, in 
the highest legislative body of this free Republic, to avow opinions such 
as we have just heard from the lips of that gentleman. I shall dismiss 
that branch of the subject now. If the gentleman is desirous of more, if 
he wishes to enter into a full and strict scrutiny of the question of slavery, 
in all its bearings, either at this session or the next, and God shall give 
me life, and breath, and the faculty of speech, he shall have it, to his 
heart's content. 

I pass now to the resolution I have offered in the shape of an amend- 
ment to the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Thomp- 
son.] And the first position I there assume is, that neither Congress nor 
any department of this Government has power under the Constitution to 
annex a foreign independent State to this Union. It is obviously a con- 
stitutional question ; and one, in my judgment, so clear as to admit but 
of little argument or illustration. The Declaration of Independence, 
which united the People of thirteen separate and independent States into 
one, speaks from the {)eginning to the end in the name of the People. 
In the very preamble of the instrument it says : 

" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for ONE PEOPLE 
to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with ANOTHER, and to 



84 

assume among the Powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the lavrs' 
of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of man- 
kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." 

One People here solemnly dissolves its former political relations to 
another People. There is the foundation of the whole instrument. It 
goes on to assign the reasons why one People have thus resolved to sep- 
arate themselves from another with which they had been connected, and 
to form a distinct and independent nation. After a declaration of self- 
evident truths, with which I will not afflict the ears of the gentleman from 
South Carolina, or of any who think, with him, that slavery is a blessing, 
it goes on to say : 

" We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general Con- 
gress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our 
intentions, do, in the name and by the auihm-ity o/THE GOOD PEOPLE of these 
colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right 
ought to be, free and independent States," «&:c. 

The declaration is made in the name and by the authority of this one 
People, thus separating themselves from another nation. Thus it was 
that the Union of these States was first formed, in the name of the Peo- 
ple, and by the representatives of the People. 

I pass on from that to the Constitution of the United States : observing, 
however, that there was an intermediate period in which was attempted 
a confederation of the States, to which the People should not be parties. 
It was attempted by their representatives in Congress, and afterwards 
sanctioned by the respective State Legislatures. It was compacted as 
strongly as in the nature of things it could be. But still it was found a 
rope of sand. And why? It was not the act of the People. And the 
remedy, under the auspices of that illustrious man who has recently de- 
parted from us, Mr. Madison, was to resort to an act of the People, not 
of the States. The very first words were such as put the People in ac- 
tion ; they declare that it is the act of one People, who have separated 
themselves from another, and have agreed to form for themselves this 
Constitution of Government. 

I shall not enter on the captious quibbling whether the People voted 
man by man, throughout the Union, or whether they voted by their rep- 
resentatives in special conventions assembled in each of the States sep- 
arately. It is not necessary to settle any such questions. These are 
the cobweb threads of Nullification, all spun from the bowels of slavery. 
The language of the whole instrument is, " We the People."' It has, 
from the beginning, been the Government of " us the People," and will, 
I trust, be that of our posterity. 

[Here the morning hour expired.] 

Tuesday, July 3, 1838. 

Mr. Adams said that the immediate question now before the House 
was a constitutional question. It arose on the amendment he had offer- 
ed, which declared that neither Congress nor any other department of 
the Government of the United States had power, under the Con- 
stitution, to annex the People of a foreign independent State into the 
Union. 

In support of this position, he had been endeavoring to show that the 



85 

Government of the United States is a compact of the People of the 
United States, and, for this end, he had read portions of the Declaration 
of National Independence, by which the Union of these States was 
formed ; from which it appeared that the signers of that instrument, 
every where, spoke in the name and by the authority of the People of 
these States as one People. The same thing appeared in the very 
first words of the Constitution, " We the People." The whole Consti- 
tution derived its force solely from those words. It was prepared by a 
special convention, assembled under the authority of the Legislatures of 
the States ; and they prepared it as an attorney would prepare any legal 
paper for another to sign, but which was in itself of no force or validity 
whatever, until executed by the person in whose name it was drawn up. 
This was an instrument running in the name of the People, but it was 
of no effect until the People, by their sovereign act, sanctioned and gave 
it validity. This (said Mr. A.) is the foundation of the Government of 
the United States as it now exists. 

As a further authority, to the same effect, I will now read a line or 
two of the Farewell Address of the first President. The address itself is 
directed to the People of the United States, and was delivered towards 
the close of his public services as their first Chief Magistrate : 

" Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a 
strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to tou the choicest 
tokens of its beneficence; that tour union and brotherly aifection may be perpetual ; 
that the free Constitution, which is the work of tour hands, may be sacredly main- 
tained ; that its administration, in every department, may be stamped with wisdom 
and virtue ; that, in fine, the happiness of the People of these States, under the aus- 
pices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation, and so prudent 
a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the ap- 
plause, the affection, and the adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. 

" Here, perhaps, I ought to stop ; but a solicitude for tour welfare, which cannot 
end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge 
me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to tour solemn contemplation, and to re- 
commend to TOUR frequent review, some sentiments, which are the result of much re- 
flection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear tome all-important to the 
permanency of your felicity as a People." 

Again, he says : 

" The unity of Government, which constitutes you one People, is also now dear to 
you." 

I cite this to show that, in the understanding of George Washington, 
this is the Union of one People formed by the People themselves. No 
other authority on earth could create such a Union. I might further cite 
the fact that the Constitution was originally adopted by only eleven 
States of the thirteen, who carried through tlie struggle of the Revolu- 
tion ; the two remaining Slates viz : Rhode Island and North Carolina, 
having remained without the Union for two years after its formation, and 
became parties to it only by the action o{ the People of those State.s re- 
spectively. And, whenever new States have been admitted into it, it has 
always been by the act and operation of the People of such States and 
of the United States. 

This principle is so familiar to all the People of the United States, 
and, until of very late years, has remained so utterly unquestioned, that 
it really seems as if I was occupied in supporting a truism, and laboring 
to prove that which nobody denies ; yet it is denied, in the proposition 



that Congress has power to annex the foreign State of Texas io thm 
Union. 

This proposition is attempted to be supported solely on the ground of 
precedent ; the sole support it has is to be found in the fact that both 
Louisiana and Florida have actually been so admitted without any ac- 
tion on the part of the People. 

I i^gret that it thus becomes necessary to bring up a question of grea? 
concernment, which was agitated at the time when that annexation took 
place. It was universally admitted, previously to the Congress at which 
Louisiana was admitted into the Union, both by the " strict construc- 
tionists," as they were called, and by a different party, whom they, ir? 
turn, branded as latitudtnarians, that there was no power in Congress to 
receive a foreign State, It is well known that the gentleman who was 
at that time the Chief Magistrate was hiniself one of the strict construc- 
tionists ; and he is, to this day, considered as, if not tha founder, the 
great apostle of that political sect. It was my fortiine to take my seat 
in another part of this Capitol at the extra session of Congress called fos 
the express purpose of considering on the admission of Louisiana, In 
justice to the subject, I shall be obliged to show to the House, first, wha?. 
■were the opinions of the then Chief Magistrate in that matter ; then,, 
what were my own opinions; then, what was his action; andjiastly^ 
what was my own action, on that occasion. 

I have stated that tlie Chief Magistrate has always been, and still i& 
considered as, the founder of the sect of strict constructionists. What- 
ever rept>tation I may myself have had, it certainly never W3s that of a 
strict constructionist. I have before me a political journal of the presen'S 
day, in which a very different representation of my opinions is given,, 
and in which a heavy charge is advanced against the integrity of my 
private conduct. I will read to the Hou!^e from a letter addressed tO' 
the editor of the Richmond Enquirer. It seems that the editor of thafi; 
journal, in discussing the scheme of a sub-treasury, had permitted him- 
self to make an extract from the Constitution of the United States; an^J 
in that extract was contained the eighth section of the first article, in these 
words : 

"The object of the Government is to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, anc? 
excises ; to pay the debts and pro^'ide for the common defence and general welfare of 
the United States." 

And had committed the enormous crime, the; fraud, the forgery, of 
putting after the word " excises" a semicolon instead of a comma ' [A 
faugh.] This produces the letter in which the writer takes the editor to 
task for his preference of a deposile system over the project of a sub- 
treasury. His objection, he says, is to the punctuation ; you have in- 
serted a semicolon where there ought to have been a comma \ 

" My objection is to the pitnctnation. After the word • excises,' you use a :!emi- 
colon ijistead of a comma ; and I submit to you, if the use of a semicolon instead of a 
colon does not enlarge the powers of Congress beyond what yoa and the other istric*. 
constructionists, anti-tariffites, (fee, admit to be proper." 

There is the great principle of the delegation of power to the Govern 
ment of the United States ; the grand difference between two political 
schools lies in substituting a colon (for it is a colon, and not a semicolon) 
for a comma ! [Laughter.] For this we have declamation a^ainsS 



87 

tariffs, banks, deposite laws, sub-lreasuries, and every fiscal power which 
the Government can exercise. There it is. That I take to be the one 
article of the creed of the entire school of which the tiien Chief Magis- 
trate of the United States was the father and founder. 
The correspondent of Mr. Ritchie proceeds : 

"A hint to you is enough. I refer you to all the ccu'ly publications of that instru- 
ment, especially to the let vol. United States Laws, published in 1796. It is said that 
•John Q. Adams tvas the first to introduce the semicolon, and all of his party have 
carried out the political fraud. Has Congres.s the power to lay and collect taxes, 
duties, imposts, and excises, at their will, or merely to pay the debts and provide for 
the common defence and general welfare of the United States 1 I anticipate your 
answer. You will say, the Constitution, and not the loill of Congress, is to rule. 
Pardon me, I pray you ; I design to act as a political, as I am your personal friend. 
J' Very respectfully, 

" A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST." 

" It is said" — I now ask the House to attend to wiiat is said — " It is 
said that John Q. Adams was the first to introduce the semicolon, and 
ail of his party Imve carried out the political fraud." There is the great 
and heinous political fraud ; first introduced Ijy John Q. Adams, by sub- 
stituting a colon for a comma ! [Loud laughter.] Now, I believe that 
she Richmond Enquirer is a sort of oracle in Virginia ; and I fear ex- 
ceedingly that my fellow-citizens of Virginia, (for whom I feel the same 
strong attachmerst which I do for my fellow-citizens of Massachusetts,) 
a great multitude of them, seeing such a position taken in that paper, 
will actually believe that I was, indeed, the first to introduce this terrible 
colon instead of a comma, and that because " it is said." For that 
reason, I greatly fear they will credit not only the assertion that I was 
the first to perpetrate that atrocious deed, but that I was at heart 
fraudulent, and a sort of character to whom such proceedings are 
familiar. 

Sir, I wish not to dwell longer than necessary on this matter, nor fur- 
ther than to state the actual fact. The publication to which this writer 
refers was made by me while Secretary of State. [ was charged with 
the duty of having the debates in the general convention which formed 
the Constitution printed under my direction. The copy where this for- 
midable colon makes its appearance was ilriade in 1819. A MS. cop}' of 
all the papers of the convention of 1787, with the comma after the word 
*' excises," just as it was written in the original Constitution, was sent 
to the publisher at Boston ; but he, as a printer, instead of printing from 
this MS. furnished to him from the Department of State, for the con- 
venience of printing from print instead of manuscript, took an old print- 
ed copy of the Constitution, contained in a volume of the Laws of Mas- 
sachusetts, and in that was this mischievous colon. 

Aftur this, a great debate took place in this House, and a Representa- 
tive from the State of Virginia, now no more, made this grand discovery, 
that there was a colon instead of a comma; and he, on the floor of the 
House, without naming; or charging me in the matter, spoke of it as a 
fraud and a forgery, copied from that (supposed) authentic copy into all 
the copies of the Constitution published since. In consequence of these 
remarks of his, another meml)er from Virginia, a friend of mine, who 
thought my reputation implicated, informed me of the speech, and of the 
charges which had been advanced. It was not, indeed, directed at me 



personally, but, as the book had been printed under my supervision, ! 
was thought to be involved in it. The g^tleman who had made the 
charge, at the request of my friend, examined the original copy of the 
Constitution, and the MS. copy by me forwarded to the printer, and there 
he found the comma; whereupon, he declared himself fully satisfied, so 
far as I was concerned. But now, fifteen or sixteen years after all this, 
the charge reappears in this oracular journal of Virginia. It is revived ; 
and the readers of that journal are told that " it is said" I was the first 
man thus to corrupt the copies of the Constitution, and that all my friends 
and supporters have carried on the same fraud and deception ever since. 
Now, as to the fact. This book, as I have said, was published in 1819. 
Now here is a copy of laws published during the administration of Mr. 
Madison, under the direction of James Monroe, Secretary of State, and 
Richard Rush, Attorney General of the United States, in 1815, four 
years before my publication of the Journal of the Convention, and here 
is found that same identical formidable and fraudulent semicolon! 
[A laugh.] 

So much for this fraud, of which I am said to have been the origina- 
tor ; and whatever may be said of me hereafter, I hope my friends from 
Virginia, in this House, will acquit me, at least, from that crime. 

This, however, is somewhat aside from what I was speaking about ; 
which was, the strictness of that Chief Magistrate by whom Louisiana 
was admitted into the Union, f will now return, and read to the House, 
from his published writings, what was his opinion as to the constitu- 
tionality of that admission. 

I have here his letter of the 12th August, 1803. It will be recollected 
that the Louisiana treaty had been signed in April of that year, and 
Congress was called to meet on the 17th October. The letter is ad- 
dressed to Mr. Breckenridge, then a member of the Senate, afterwards 
Attorney General of the United States. It relates entirely to the 
subject of Louisiana ; but I will read that portion only which refers to 
the constitutional power of Congress to adn)it that country into the 
Union. 

"The inhabited part of Louisiana, from Point Coupee to the sea, will of course 
be immediately a Territorial Government, and soon a State. But, above that, the best 
use we can make of the country, for some time, will be to give establishments in it to 
the Indians on the east side of the Mississippi, in exchange for their present country, 
and open land offices in the last, and thus make this acquisition the means of filling 
up the eastern side, instead of drawing off its population. When we shall be full on 
this side, we may lay off a range of States on the western bank, from the head to the 
mouth, and so, range after range, advancing compactly as we multiply. 

" This treaty must, of course, be laid before both Houses, because both have im- 
portant functions to exercise respecting it. They, I presume, will see their duty to 
their country in ratifying and paying for it, so as to secure a good which would other- 
wise probably be never again in their power. But I suppose they nmst then appeal 
to the nation for an additional article to the Constitution, approving and confirming 
an act which the nation had not previously authorized. The Constitution has made 
no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations 
into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much 
advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The 
Legislature, in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties, and risking themselves 
like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it, and throw themselves on their 
country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for 
themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian, invest- 



89 

mg the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory ; and saying 
to him, when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you; 
you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can ; I thought it my duty 
to risk myself for you. But we shall not be disavowed by the nation, and their act 
of indemnity will confirm and not weaken the Constitution, by more strongly marking 
out its lines." — Jefferson^ s Writings, vol. iii,j|. 512. 

Now if it is possible to express an opinion on any constitutionaj ques- 
tion, it is expressed in that letter, without qualification. He says ex- 
pressly, "still less has Congress power to incorporate foreign nations into 
the Union." 

But that is not the only case in which the same person has expressed 
the same opinion. There is another letter here, addressed to Levi 
Lincoln, (the father of my honorable colleague,) th^n Attorney General 
of the United States, and dated the 30th August, 1803. It seems the 
writer had consulted with him as to what was to be done ; and there had 
probably been prepared the draught of an amendment to the Constitution, 
intended to meet the case, and legalize the act of admission. 

" On further consideration as to the amendment to our Constitution respecting 
Louisiana, I have thought it better, instead of enumerating the powers which Con- 
gress may exercise, to give them the same powers they have as to other portions of 
the Union generally, and to enumerate the special exceptions, in some such form as 
the following : 

' ' Louisiana, as ceded by France to the United States, is made a part of the United 
States ; its white inhabitants shall be citizens, and stand, as to their rights and obliga- 
tions, on the same footing with other citizens of the United States, in analogous situ- 
ations. Save only that, as to the portion thereof lying north of an east and west line 
drawn through the mouth of Arkansas river, no new State shall be established, nor 
any grants of land made, other than to Indians, in exchange for equivalent portions 
of land occupied by them, until an amendment of the Constitution shall be made for 
these purposes." — Jefferson'' s Writings, vol. iv, p. 1. 

There is another letter to Wilson Carey Nicholas, then a member of 
the Senate, and one of the most distinguished sons of Virginia, after- 
wards a member of this House, and subsequently Governor of the Com- 
monwealth. This distinguished man was, at that time, the intimate and 
confidential friend of Mr. Jefferson. Here the writer says: 

" Whatever Congress should think it necessary to do, should be done with as little 
debate as possible, and particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty. I 
am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the Con- 
stitution to Congress to admit new States into the Union, without restraining the 
subject to the territory tlien constituting the United States. But when I consider that 
the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Con- 
stitution expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, I cannot help 
believing the intention was not to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, 
which should be formed out of the territory for which, and under whose authority 
alone, they were then acting. I do not believe it was meant that they might receive 
England, Ireland, Holland, &c., into it, which would be the case on your construc- 
tion. When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other 
dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and 
precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is 
found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers 
boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let 
us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of 
those who consider the giant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then 
we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions 
of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies and delineates the operations 
permitted to the Federal Government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry 



90 

these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects 13 proper for a law, 
Congress may make the law ; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, 
the President and Senate may enter into the treaty ; whatever is to be done by a judi- 
cial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. Nothing is more likely than that 
their enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human 
works. Let us go on then perfectiiut it, by adding, by way of amendment to the 
Constitution, those powers which tiiOT and trial show are still wanting. But it has 
been taken too much for granted that by this rigorous construction the treaty-power 
would be reduced to nothing. I had occasion once to examine its efl'ects on the French 
treaty, made by the old Congress, and found that out of thirty odd articles which that 
contained, there were one, two, or three only, which could not now^ be stipulated 
under our present Constitution. I confess, then, I think it important, in the present 
case, to set an example against broad construction, by appealing for new power to the 
People. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce 
with satisfaction ; confiding that the good sense of our country will correct the evil 
of constructioji when it shall produce ill efiects." — Jefferson's Writings, vol. iv,p. 2. 

That was in September. 1803. There are others. One was written 
to Dr. Sibley, in all which he expressed, in terms quite as strong as those 
I liave now cited, the opinion that there was no power in Congress to 
admit the People of a foreign State into the Union, or even to annex the 
territory itself to ours. 

On this latter point I differed from him. I thought Congress might 
constitutionally annex the territory, the mere soil ; but not the living 
man ; the inhabitants have rights on the part of themselves, and there 
are corresponding rights on the part of those to whom they are to be an- 
ne.xed, over which Congress has, and can have, no power or control. 

It is well known, however, that, notwithstanding all these expressions 
of opinion, the act of admission was nevertheless consummated by the 
Congress of the United States, and Louisiana is now a part of the Union. 
I have, however, no hesitation in saying that the act was, in itself, null 
and void, and a majority of the People might have resisted and put it 
down. I never have thought tiiat the acquisition of Louisiana was le- 
galized by any thing else than by the acquiescence of the People. Yet, 
when a question is up before this body touching banks, or the currency, 
or tariffs, the whole House bristles up with gentlemen who will tell you 
that an acquiescence by the People for thirty and forty years is of no effect 
whatever ; that a constitutional question always remains ; that the People 
are always free to put down an unconstitutional usurpation, &.c. Sir, 
this is going beyond my theory. 

But I slated to the House that after exhibiting the opinions of the 
President of the United States respecting this annexation of Louisiana, 
and vi'hat was his practice, I would then state what had been n)y own. 
I come now to that part of my subject. 

Having taken my seat, as I said, in the other branch of the National 
Legislature, at the session of Congress called for the confirmation of the 
treaty of Louisiana, I was in favor of the acquisition, and willing to do 
all in my power to carry it into effectj Li the 4th volume of Elliot's 
Debates, there is a speech which I made on that subject in the Senate. 

[Here the morning hour expired, and Mr. A. resumed his seat.] 

Wednesday, July 4, 1838. 

Mr. AdaiMs observed that, after having adverted to the constitutional 
opinions and to the practical action, with regard to the acquisition of 



91 

Louisknaand the annexation of the People of that country to the United 
States, of the Chief Magistrate by whom that measure was consummated, 
he would now exhibit wliat iiad been his opinions and his corresponding 
action upon the same occasion. He had been describing his course on 
the subject of the cession of Louisiana, and had expressed his opinion 
that Congress could not take possession of a foreign territory, and annex 
the People thereof to the Union, without an amendment of the Constitu- 
tion. He said he had taken his seat as a member of the Senate of the 
United States in October, 1803, at the session specially called by Mr. 
Jeft'erson, for the consideration of the Louisiana treaty and convention ; 
and he would first refer to the remarks made by hijn on the bill authori- 
zing the creation of a stock to the amount of $11,250,000 for the pur- 
pose of carrying the convention into effect. They were reported in the 
4ti) volume of Elliot's Debates on the Constitution, which he sent to the 
Clerk's table, with the request that they might be read : 

" Mr. Adams. It has been argued that the bill ought not to pass, because the treaty 
itself is an unconstitutional, or, to use the words of the gentleman from Connecticut, 
(Mr. Tract,) an extra constitutional act, because it contains engagements which 
the powers of the Senate 'were not competent to ratify ; the powers of Congress not 
competent to confimi, and, even as two of the gentlemen have contended, not even 
the Legislatures of the number of States requisite to cflect an amendment of the Con- 
stitution are adequate to sanction. It is, therefore, they say, a nullity. We cannot 
fuMl our part of its conditions, and, on our failure in the performance of any one 
stipulation, France may consider herself as absolved fi'om the obligations of the whole 
treaty on hers. I do not conceive it necessary to enter into the merits of the treaty at 
this time. The proper occasion for that discussion is past. But allowing even that 
this is a case for v^hich the Constitution has not provided, it does not in my mind follow 
that the 'treaty is a nullity, or that its obligations cither on us or on France must 
necessarily be cancelled. For my own part, I am free to confess, that the third article, 
and more especially the seventh, contain engagements placing us in a dilemma, from 
which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather 
an addition to the Constitution. 

"The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Tract,) both on a former occasion, and 
in this day's debate, appears to me to have shown this to demonstration : but what is 
this more than saying that the President and Senate have bound the nation to en- 
gagements which require the co-operation of more extensive powers than theirs to 
catrry them into execution 7 Nothing is more common in the negotiations between 
nation and nation, than for a minister to agree to and sign articles beyond the extent 
of his powers. This is what your ministers, in the verj' case before you, have con- 
fessedly done. It is well known that their powers did not authorize them to conclude 
this treaty, but they acted for the benefit of their country, and this House, by a large 
majority, has advised to the ratification of their proceedings. Suppose, then, not 
only that the ministers who signed, but the President and Senate who ratified this 
compact, have exceeded their powers. Suppose that the other House of Congress, 
who have given their assent by passing this and other bills for the fulfilment of the 
obligations it imposes on us, have exceeded their powers. Nay, suppose even that 
the majority of the States competent to amend the Constitution in other cases could 
not amend it in this without exceeding their powers, (and this is the extremest point 
to which any gentleman on this floor has extended his scruples) — suppose all this, and 
there still remauis in the country a power competent to adopt and sanction every part 
of our e'ngagements, and to carry them entirely into execution. For, notwithstanding 
the objections and apprehensions of many individuals, of many wise, able, and ex- 
cellent men, in various parts of the Union, yet such is the pulilic favor attending the 
transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which I hope will 
terminate in our full, undisturbed, and undisputed possession of the ceded territory, 
that I firmly believe if an amendment to the Constitution, amply sufTicient for the ac- 
complishment of every thing for which v;c have contracted, shall be proposed, asl 
think it ought, it will be adopted by the Legislature of every State in the Union. 



92 

We can, therefore, fulfil our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a 
right to require of us. France can never have a right to come and say — 'I am dis- 
charged from the obligation of this treaty, because your President and Senate, iu 
ratifying, exceeded their powers,' for this would be interfering in the internal arrange- 
ments of our Government. It would be intermeddling in questions with which she 
has no concern, and which must be settled altogether by ourselves. The only ques- 
tion for France is, whether she has contracted with the department of our Govern- 
ment authorized to make treaties ; and this being clear, her only right is to require that 
the conditions stipulated in our name be punctually and faithfully performed. I trust 
they will be so performed, and will cheerfully lend my hand to every act necessary to 
the purpose. For I consider the object as of the highest advantage tons; and the 
gentleman from Kentucky himself, who has displayed with so much eloquence the 
immense importance to this Union of the possession of the ceded country, cannot 
carry his ideas further on the subject than I do. 

" With these impressions, sir, perceiving in the first objection no substantial reason 
requiring the postponement, and in the second no adequate argument for the rejection 
of this bill, I shall give my vote in its favor." 

Mr. Adams resumed. A few days after the debate in the Senate, in 
the course of which he had given these views, he had called on Mr. 
Madison, and expressed them to him. Mr. Madison conctirred with 
them entirely. I inquired of him whether or not it were probable that 
any member of Congress, in the confidence of the Administration of that 
day, would bring forward a proposition to that effect"? To these ques- 
tions Mr. M. had responded that he was not aware of any such intention 
on the part of any member. Mr. A. had then told Mr. M. that he should 
wait a reasonable time, and, if not made in any other quarter, should 
himself propose an amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly, he 
draughted such an amendment, and, when he showed this afterwards to 
Mr. Madison, the latter observed that, in his opinion, an amendment, in 
these words, " Louisiana is hereby annexed to the United States," would 
be all (hat would be necessary. A few days after tliis, on the 25ih of 
November, 1803, he (Mr. A.) did bring forward the following proposition : 

"Resolved, That a committee of members be appointed to inquire whether 

any, and, if any, what further measures may be necessary for carrying into effect the 
treaty between the United States and the French Eepublic, concluded at Paris on the 
30th of April, 1803, whereby Louisiana was ceded to the United States; which com- 
mittee may report by bill or otherwise." 

But (resumed Mr. Adams) it had been determined by the Comma-ites 
of the day that the annexation should be made by act of Congress. For 
as, according to the authentic testimony of Captain Lemuel Gulliver, 
the people of the kingdom of Lilliput were divided into two great vio- 
lently contending parties upon the vitally important question wh.ether an 
egg should be broken at the larger or the smaller end, and were known to 
afl the rest of mankind by the name of the Big-endians and the Little- 
endians, so the people of tliis our beloved country, conscientiously and 
scrupulously bound to support the Constitution of the United States, each 
individual among us as he understands it, are divided into two great 
and inveterate parties, who may, with propriety, be denominated the 
Comma-ites and the Semicolon-ifcs ; the Comma-ites believing that the 
only effective limitation of the powers of Congress in the Constitution of 
the United States, which can save the whole nation and their posterity, 
to the end of time, from the gulf of consolidation and all the horrors of 
monarchy, is a comma, in the 1st paragraph of the 8lh section of the 1st 
article of the Constitution ; and the Semicolon-ites believing that the 



93 

powers of Congress depend not in the minutest particle upon this error 
of punctuation, and that whether the paragraph be written or printed 
with a comma or a semicolon, the powers delegated by it to Congress 
are precisely and identically the same ; that whether the power " to lay 
and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," be a distinct and separate 
grant from that " to pay the debts and provide for the common defence 
and general welfare of the United States," or whether it bo a single 
grant of means to the attainment of an end, namely, the payment of the 
debts and provision for the common defence and general welfare of the 
Union, the extent of power granted is precisely the same. Thus stands 
the difference of principle. The Comma-ites allege that the power to 
Jay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, is limited to the ex- 
press purposes of the grant — the payment of debts and provision for the 
common defence and general welfare; and that Congress have no power 
to levy taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for any other purpose ; and, 
further, that the end to be obtained — payment of debts, common defence, 
and general welfare — is also limited to the means granted, the power of 
taxation ; and that Congress have no lawful authority te provide for this 
end by any other means. They insist that the grant of power is limited 
by the expressed purpose, and that the purpose is limited by the specifi- 
cation of the power. The Semicolon-ites, admitting that the comma is 
the punctuation of the constitution as engrossed on parchment in the 
archives of the Department of State, and that the semicolon and the 
colon, appearing in many printed copies of the constitution, are errors 
of the press, originating they know not how or when, or by whom, con- 
sider them as perfectly immaterial. The ambiguity of the sense, they 
think, consists not in the punctuation, but in the phraseolog}' — in the 
repetition of the infinitive mood in the verb to pay, which infinitive mood 
is used throughout the section to mark the several specifications of the 
granted powers, and only in this and in one other passage to indicate the 
purpose for which the power is granted. But they maintain that as the 
whole power of taxation, in all its forms, is delegated to Congress for the 
expressed purpose of paying the debts and providing for the common 
defence and general welfare of the Union, so Congress may, by another 
grant of power, enact other laws necessary and proper to carry into ex- 
ecution the same purposes — payment of the debts and provision for the 
common defence and general welfare of the Union. 

Now the Comma-ites contend that the payment of the debts, and the 
provision for the common defence and the general welfare, being merely 
ends to be obtained, are no grants of power at all. They are strict con- 
structionists ; and the President of the United States at the time of the 
Louisiana treaty was considered, as he has ever since been held, the 
founder of their sect — the first and foremost of their leaders. The 
President of the United States of that day, and his friends, were Com- 
ma-ites — professed strict constructionists; and yet that Congress and 
that Administration did annex Louisiana to the Union. He himself 
(Mr. A.) was a Semicolon-ite, and believed that Congress had the powei 
to levy duties and to pay the debts of the Union, and that the question was 
one of complete indifference whether the power to levy taxes and the 
power to pay the debts were distinct and separate grants, or whether the 
power to levy taxes was granted for the purpose of accomplishing the 



94 

oayment of the debts. He was a liberal constructionist, and yet did not 
consider the Constitution as a delegation of unlimited powers. He was, 
a.ccord!ng to the vocabulary of the Richmond Enquirer, a latitudinarian ; 
and yet lie found nowhere in the Constitution a power granted to Con- 
gress to make a whole foreign People citizens of the United States. He 
was, according to the correspondent of the Richmond Enquirer, by the 
generous imputation of an " it is said," not only a Semicolon-ite, but 
the fraudulent inventor of the semicolon, and falsifier of the Constitution. 
He trusted he had proved that neither the honor nor the shame of that 
invention belonged to him. But when Louisiana was purchased, he did 
believe that the annexation of the People of that province to this Union 
transcended the lawful power of Congress, and required tiie explicit as- 
sent both of the People of the United States and of the People of 
Louisiana. Under these impressions, he ofiered to the Senate of the 
United States the resolution recorded upon their Journal of the 25th of 
November, 1803 ; and, in offering it, assigned, more at large than he had 
done in his remarks of the preceding 25th of October, his reasons for 
believing an amendment to the Constitution indispensable for annexing 
the People of Louisiana to this Union. But his motion for the appoint- 
ment of a committee was rejected. The Comma-ites, the strict con- 
structionists, the most straitest sect of the Pharisees, passed an act for 
the temporary government of Louisiana, giving to the President of the 
United States, within that Territory, all the powers that had ever been 
exercised there by the King of Spain. Afterwards, during the same ses- 
sion of Congress, they extended the laws of the United States over the 
Territory, and among the rest the revenue laws. He then made one 
more, and a last effort to record his solemn dissent to all those proceed 
ings, as utterly unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States, 
by the following resolutions : 

"Resolved, That the People of the United States have never, in any manner, 
delegated to this Senate the power of giving its legislative concurrence to any act for 
imposing taxes upon the inhabitants of Louisiana without their consent. 

"Resolved, That, by concuning in any act of legislation for imposing taxes upon 
the inhabitants of Louisiana without their consent, this Senate would assume a power 
unwarranted by the Constitution, and dangerous to the liberties of the People of the 
United States. 

" Resolved, That the power of originating bills for raising revenue being exclusively 
vested in the House of Kepresentatives, these resolutions be carried to them by the 
Secretary of the Senate: that, whenever they think proper, they may adopt such 
measures as to their wisdom may appear necessary and expedient for raising and col- 
lecting a revenue from Louisiana." 

The resolutions were rejected by yeas and nays, 4 to 22. 

Such then was the theory, and such was {he jyractice of the Comma- 
ites, the strict constructionists, with Mr. Jefferson at their head, at 
the time of the acquisition of Louisiana. Mr. Jefferson's opinions appear 
in the letters from which extracts have been read ; his acts appear upon 
the statute book. He signed the act giving to himself the powers of the 
King of Spain throughout the Territory of Louisiana. He signed the acts 
for taxing the inhabitants of Louisiana, and for extending the laws of the 
United States over the Territory. Mr. Adams voted against them all 
during that session. Afterwards, considering the acquiescence of the 
People of the United States and of Louisiana in the execution of those 



95 

laws, and their submission to them, as giving them, by tacit assent, a 
sanction equivalent to the popular voice, he has considered the constitu- 
tional question as settled, so far as the precedent extended ; and, at a 
subsi'quent period, contributed, without hesitation, his official service to 
a course of measures precisely similar, to accomplish the acquisition of 
the two Floridas. The constitutional scruple has disappeared. He has 
considered that the treaty-making power, together with the power of 
admitting new States into the Union, and a very liberal construction of 
the power of levying taxes, duties, imposts, arid excises, to pay the debts 
and provide for the common defence and general welfare, are in their 
combination adequate to the annexation of a foreign Territory to this 
Union. But he still believes that the annexation of a foreign People 
cannot be effected but by their own consent, and the consent of the 
People of the United States. This latter consent Congress has no 
power to give. It must be by an act of the People themselves, repre- 
sented in special conventions, as they gave their consent to the existing 
Constitution ; and my heart's desire and prayer to God is that they 
never will consent to be united with a People whose first entrance into the 
world of independent nations is with the ignominious brand of freemen 
transformed to slaves upon their brow. 

On the principle laid down in the resolutions he had offered to the 
Senate, he believed, and still believes, tiiat it was perfectly competent 
for the People of the United States to have declared the Union then and 
thereby at an end ; and he knew that there was, indeed, such a project 
at the time on foot. At that time it might have properly and consistently 
been carried into effect. 

Mr. A. then adverted to another principle in the case of Louisiana,, 
distinguishing it from that immediately under consideration. When the 
debates he had been describing took place, a reply had been given to 
some remarks of his own, to the effect that Louisiana was a province of 
a foreign Sovereign ; that that Sovereign had absolute power over that 
province, and, by virtue thereof, had transferred to the United Stales his 
right to and power over the same ; that, by the customary law of nations, 
among European Powers, the People were liable to be thus transferred 
without their consent; that the People of Louisiana had been thus 
transferred, and could only claim the rights stipulated for them by the 
treaty — which were, that they should be incorporated into the Union, 
and thereby become entitled to the enjoyment of ail the rights of citizens 
of the United States. 

Now, sir, (argued Mr. A.,) this principle, whether applicable or not in 
the other case, can have no application to the present case. Texas is 
not now the province of an absolute Sovereign. The People thereof 
have formed a Republic. They have declared themselves independent. 
This Government has distinctly recognised them as such. Now it is 
alleged that this People, thus independent, have acted for themselves in 
this matter; they have expressed their wish, and made their application, 
to become a part of this Union. They have done their part. Mr. A. 
admitted it. He had no authentic announcement of the fact. He found 
it conceded, and referred to as a fact, in the Texian legislative debates. 
So far, every thing had been consistent with the proper principle ; the 
principle that he (Mr. A.) had always contended for. But, as the appli- 



96 

cation foi admission into the Union had been made by the People of 
Texas, so only could it be entertained by the People of the United 
States. It was a question to be settled by the representatives of the 
People, in special conventions of the several States, for that purpose 
assembled. This seemed to him a very plain and simple principle ; 
and, to his mind, presented very distinctly the exact difference between 
the Louisiana and Florida cases and that immediately under considera- 
tion. 

Thus far (continued Mr. A.) we have been considering the constitu- 
tional principles involved in this case. There are, however, other ob- 
jections with me to the annexation of Texas to this Union — objections, 
the discussion of which I feel some embarrassment in approaching. I 
wish to proceed with this argument without giving oft'ence to any one, 
and without intrenching upon the order of debate. But the petition 
which I first presented to this House, and which was referred to the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs, and read here by me during this discussion, 
protests against this annexation ; not on the ground of constitutional prin- 
ciples; not on the ground tliat such annexation, if it take place at all, 
must be by the action of the People; but the memorial protests against 
the annexation to this Union of Texas as a slave State ; as a Republic, 
in which slavery, having once been destroyed, has been reinstituted, and 
in which it is perpetuated beyond the reach of the Legislature itself. In 
the resolutions of the State Legislatures, which had been presented, with 
regard to this subject, and which had been referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, and by them returned, unread, to the House, this was 
the point on which, upon both sides, the chief stress was laid. One side 
memorialized Congress to admit Texas to the Union as a slave State ; 
this was the ground on which it was asked; this the motive which, it is 
hoped, would impel Congress to sanction it. The other side resisted 
such annexation on precisely the converse ground ; that it would add 
more slave territory to the Union, and would extend the institution of 
slavery within its limits. The terms of these petitions, memorials, and 
resolutions, it would be seen, had trius explicitly brought the whole ques- 
tion 0^ slavery before Congress upon its merits : slavery, as an institution ; 
as affecting the n^rals and the policy of the nation. And the question, 
which, u'hen asked a kw months ago, on that floor, by the gentleman 
from Vermont, [Mr. Slade,] produced such a convulsion in that bod}', 
had now come up fairly and distinctly before the House for its consider- 
ation ; and no definitive settlement of this matter could be had until that 
question — What is slavery ? — -should be fairly examined and answered. 
And yet (Mr. A. said) it was his wish to avoid that subject, as much as 
possible, in this discussion. He had always declared such to be his wish 
and intention ; and h^ had now been forced into the discussion of it by 
what had fallen from different gentlemen during the debate. One of 
these [Mr. Elmore] had designated his remarks as " insane ravings," in 
his place ; a gentleman distinguished, generally, for politeness, courtesy, 
and urbanity ; and that gentleman, too, the minister plenipotentiary of 
the Southern conventicle, which 

[Here Mr. Elmore rose and disclaimed any intention of hurting the 
feelings of the gentleman from Massachusetts by the hasty remark to 
which the latter had adverted. That remark fell from him in a mo- 



97 

raentary feeling of irritation, and was regretted as murli by himself as it 
could be by any other member on that floor.] 

JMr. Adams wa§ satisfied with the explanation, and was glad to be 
spared the necessity of commenting on the appropriateness and good 
taste of siich an imputation as the member from South Carolina had per- 
mitted himself to make u[)on remarks which had been uttered, in order, 
in debate. He had known instances before in which madness was im- 
puted to the zealous opponent of erroneous principles. He remembered 
to have read the story of a discussion, not dissimilar in principle to the 
present, in which such an imputation had been made against the 
"ravings" of one whose shoe's latchet he himself was unworthy to loose, 
for his zealous advocacy of the truth. Had the honorable member ever 
heard of that case? Paul stood before Festus, the Roman Governor, 
and King Agrippa, and delivered one of those eloquent discourses which 
have won the admiration of ages, and, in the midst thereof, he was in- 
terrupted by the Roman Governor, who "said, with a loud voice, Paul, 
thou art beside thyself! Much learning doth make thee mad." The 
apostle contented himself with simply responding, "I am not mad, most 
noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness ;" and Mr. 
A. would beg the gentleman from South Carolina to receive from him 
the same answer, not as " insane ravings," but as " the words of truth 
and soberness." 

Mr. A. added, that he had felt more sensibly the force of such an ex- 
pression, proceeding, as it had, from a gentleman whom the House would 
do himself' the justice to say he drew with a graphic hand, as an accom- 
plished gentlen)an, a cultivated scholar, and a man of strong mind and 
judgment. This was a tribute due to that honorable member from all 
who had read the correspondence which he had had, as the minister 
plenipotentiary of the Southern conventicle that recommended " the gag" 
to be applied to members of that House, upon certain subjects, with a 
gentleman, [Mr. Birney,] his equal in mind, and in the power of cool 
deliberate investigation of the high principles involved in that discussion. 
He (Mr. A.) was happy that that correspondence had been spread before 
the nation, to be judged of as it deserved, on both sides. 

But all this (Mr. A. remarked) was but incidental to what he had set 
out with asserting, that the discussion of this part of the subject had been 
forced upon him by the remarks of others. When the gentleman from 
South Carolina, [Mr. Pickens,] who was now absent from his place for 
a cause which he most deeply lamented, [illness in his family at home,] 
had declared his wish, at a former session, to open this debate, upon the 
issue of slavery upon its merits, Mr. A. said he had given that honorable 
member notice that, when that issue was opened upon that floor, the ad- 
vocates of slavery would most surely find that there were two sides 
to the debate, and that they would not be permitted to be the only par- 
ties who should be heard thereupon. And he trusted that the gentleman 
who had now tendered this issue, by the resolution he had offered, and 
which was then under consideration, [Mr. Thompson,] did not indulge 
the idea that it would be decided until both sides should be heard thereon. 
And when his friend by his side [Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina,] 
had interrupted him in a former part of his argument, for the purpose of 
explanation, and had taken that opportunity to enter at large into the 



98 

argument, he [Mr. C] liad forced upon liitn (Mr. A.) this discussion , he- 
had plainly made the issue intimated by his colleagues at former periods 
of the discussion, and had been answered as well as the occasion per- 
mitted. More, much more, might have been said, and would be said, 
perhaps, at another time, by himself, and others much more able tban 
himself to do it with effect, in reply to the philosophical argument of the 
gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Campbell,] that slavery was not 
a political or moral evil. Mr. A. hoped that that question would be dis- 
cussed. But it should not be, by himself, at that time. There were ar- 
guments enough against the annexation of Texas to this Unron without 
that. One thing he would, however, add. He would beg gentlemen, 
whenever this issue should be deliberately tried, now or hereaiter, not to 
consider this question of slavery in its connexion with Texas as a ques- 
tion simply whether a new slave State shall be added to the Union, but 
whether a foreign State, in which slavery, having once been abolished, 
was reinstituted, and by law made a permanent institution forever, and 
in which laws had been enacted that slaveholders should not, if they 
would, emancipate their slaves, should be received as a member of this 
Union. This was a very different question from the other. Texas had 
been a free province, by the absolute decree of the Mexican Govern- 
ment, to which it belonged ; entirely free ; and they who had made the 
law which reinstituted slavery there, had usurped a power which did not 
belong to them in so doing. Where they got that power he hoped the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Campbell] would show, when he' 
should come to argue this question. 

[Here the hour expired, and Mr. Adams suspended his remarks.] 

Thursday, July 5, 1838. 

The report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in relation to Texzs being again, 
under consideration as the vmfinished business of the morning hour — 

Mr. Adams resumed. I was saying yesterday, when cut short by the 
expiration of the hour, that it was not my wish to introduce the genera! 
discussion of the subject of slavery, either as it exists in this country or 
in Texas; and that, so far as I had introduced it, it had been forced upori 
me. It is still my intention to keep aloof from that subject at the present 
time, having no doubt that it will hereafter be discussed as it ought to be, 
and as it ought to have been for these last three years, with that freedom 
of speech which belongs to every men-iber of this House. I do not wish 
that it should be discussed prematurely ; much less is it my desire fo re- 
press any thing that the gentleman from Maryland and the other gentle- 
men of the Committee on Foreign Affairs may wish to say for them- 
selves, for slavery, or for the annexation of Texas to this Unioa; and 
that for a very good reason : I believe that what they shall say will go 
further to promote the cause I wish to advance than all I can urge in its 
favor. As to the consumption of lime, the chairman of the committee is 
not the man to urge here any objection or complaint on that score, 
when he has been shutting my mouth on this subject for these three 
years past. 

Mr. Howard here interposed, and said that he had not desired to stop 
the honorable gentleman. 



99 

Mr. Adams. I object to his now interrupting me. 

Mr. Howard said the gentleman misunderstood what he had said be- 
fore. He had objected to other gentlemen interrupting Mr. A,, because 
he wished him to go on with his speech, and to finish it. 

Mr. Adams. Yes ; and you said, " the gentleman from Massachusetts 
SHALL not occupy the time so as to exclude the members of the com- 
mittee and the friends of annexation from an opportunity of reply." Sir, 
I say such language comes with an ill grace from one who has succeeded 
in stopping my mouth, and the mouths of all who think with me, on this 
subject of Texas, for these three years past. Now he comes forward, at 
the last hour of the session, and complains of my occupying the time of 
the House with this discussion. Sir, I should not have occupied one 
fourth part of the time I have, had they not interrupted me every day 
and every hour. And as to the consumption of time, of which he makes 
so much complaint, where is the day on which that clock was suffered to 
indicate five seconds aller tiie expiration of tlie hour, that I have not 
instantly been cut short by a demand for the orders of the day 1 

[The Chair here reminded Mr. A. tliat he must proceed with the sub- 
ject now before the House.] 

W'fell, sir, I will proceed in the discussion of the subject before the 
House. I said it had been my desire to avoid the discussion of the subject 
of slavery, as connected with the annexation of Texas to the Union ; but it 
was not possible for me to avoid the suggestion in this House, that the main 
and only plausible ground alleged in the resolutions of those State Legisla- 
tures, who are desirous for the annexation, is the principle that the admis- 
sion of that country will powerfully tend to perpetuate and strengthen the 
slaveholding interest in these States. That is the ground the}' take ; 
they apprize us of it, tliat we may be ready to vote in behalf of the 
measure. The same doctrine has been openly maintained elsewhere in 
this Capitol ; and undoubtedly that is the ground which will be taken here 
by the gentlemen from South Carolina. The}' have no other grownd to 
take. The annexation is demanded expressly because it will strengthen 
the slaveholding interest, and perpetuate the 6/esstwg- of that " peculiar 
institution" which distinguishes the Southern portion of this Union. That 
is the ground assumed in the preamble to the resolutions of the State of 
Alabama ; and they impute to me a fraudulent transaction; as having been 
perpetrated with a view to counteract the slaveholding interest of the 
South. 

So great has been the degree of indulgence and liberality with which I 
have been treated by the majority of this House, that I have been obliged 
to recur to what I can find of a report of a committee of the House of 
Representatives of the Stale of Mississippi to that body, for which I have 
so long been calling, but which has been refused to me. The Plenipotenti- 
ary ofilieTexian Government, Mr. Memucan Hunt, in his note to the Sec- 
retary of State of the United Srates, of the 12th of September, 1837, had 
invited his attention to a certain report made by a committee to the Le- 
gislature of Mississippi. I have referred to it before ; but I beg leave to 
read again that portion of General Hunt's letter to Mr. Forsyth. He says : 

" In addition to the fact that this Government, when administered by the sage of the 
Hermitage, proposed the acquisition of Texas by purchase from Mexico, many years 
before the recognition of her independence by Spain, the undersigned most respectful- 



100 

\y invites the attention of the honorable the Secretary of State to the report of the 
House of Representatives of the State of Mississippi, contained in a newspaper which 
he herewith presents. That report, which is said to have been adopted unanimously, 
alludes in strong terms to the subject of the right of this Government to admit Texas 
into its confederacy ; and the undersigned refers to it thus particularly, that he may be 
sustained by high authofity, when he assures the Secretary of State of the United 
States that, in submitting the proposition of annexation, it was far from his intention 
to ask the Government of the tjnited States to accede to a measure which Mr. Forsyth 
was instructed to say was believed to involve unjust principles. The undersigned 
assures the Secretary of State of the United States that he could not knowingly con- 
sent to be the medium of presenting any proposition asking of the United States a 
disregard of just principles." 

There the Plenipotentiary sends to Mr. Forsyth a paper to which he in- 
vites his attention. In the communication received from the Execative, 
in answer to a call for the papers on this subject, that paper was not in- 
cluded. And il is one more instance of that system of suppression of 
which I have so long complained, and of which I shall complain yet more. 
It is a paper of great importance. Why was it not sent? It contained 
the sanction of the chief argument of the Texian Minister by the unani- 
mous act of one branch of the Legislature of a State. I have not been 
able to obtain it. I have repeatedly asked leave to introduce a resolution 
calling for its production, but the House, by that same majority which has 
uniformly sustained the system of suppression which has prevailed for the 
last three years, refused me the common every-day privilege of calling for 
a paper. The first time I wished to ofier the resolution, I believe it was 
not strictly in order, although by courtesy the same thing had frequently 
been granted to others. But no ; objection was instantly made, and leave 
was refused me. 1 then offered the resolution again at a time when it 
was in order, viz: on the day set apart for the express purpose of re- 
ceiving resolutions. The Speaker then said that under the rlile the reso- 
lution must lie over for one day, unless the House would consider it then. 
This the House refused, and that one day will last beyond the close of 
our present session. Thus, I was not permitted to call for an important 
document that ought, without any special call, to have been communicated 
along with tlie rest on the same subject which accompanied the Secretary's 
report. 

But I happen to have, iy a publication which I now hold in my hand, 
a portion of that report of the Legislature of Mississippi, which it was my 
desire to procure by a call. I will read it to the House, in order to show 
the grounds on which this annexation is desired, and that the true object 
in view, from the beginning, has been to support and strengthen the 
slaveholding interest in opposition to th« views, and as a counterpoise to 
the influence, of the non-slaveholding States of the iNorlh : 

•'Mr. Phillips, of Madison, from the committee to whom was referred the memorial 
of sundry citizens of the county of Hinds, requesting the Legislature to memoralizc 
Congress in relation to the expediency of receiving Texas into the Union, made the 
following report thereon, to wit : 

' ' Mr. Speaker : the select committee to whom were referred the memorial and reso- 
lutions of sundry citizens of Hinds county, requesting the Legislature to memorialize 
the Congress of the United States, in relation to the expediency and necessity of re- 
ceiving Texas into the Union without delay, and desiring that the Representatives of 
this State in Congress, and the Senators, be instructed to vote for the same, have had 
the same under consideration; and having given to this highly important subject as 
thorough an investigation as the limited time would permit, and having duly con- 



101 

sidered the many important circumstances connected with this subject, have instructed 
me to make the following report as the result of their dehberations ; 

' ' That their decided conviction is, that the speedy annexation of Texas to this Repub- 
lic is a measure highly advisable in a national point of view, and of most imperious 
necessity to the future safety andhappiness of the Southern States of this Confederacy; 
and they feel fully assured that every consideration will most completely sanction and 
justify this important measure. " * * * * 

" But we hasten to suggest the importance of the annexation of Texas to this Re- 
public upon groimds somewhat local in their complexion, but of an import infinitely 
grave and interesting to the people who inhabit the Southern portion of this Confede- 
racy, where it is known that a species of dom.estic slavery is tolerated and protected 
by law, whose existence is prohibited by the legal regulations of other States of this 
Confederacy; which system of slavery is held by all who are familiarly acquainted 
with its practical effects to be of highly beneficial influence to the country within 
whose limits it is permitted to exist. 

" The committee feel authorized to say that this system is cherished by our con- 
stituents as the very palladium of their prosperity andhappiness; and whatever igno- 
rant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture, the com mitfee are fully assured, upon the 
most diligent observation and reflection on the subject, thai the South does not possess 
within her limits a blessing with which the affections of her People are so closely en- 
twined and so completely inflbred, and ivhose value is more highly appreciated than 
that which we are now considering." * * * * 

" It may not be improper here to remark, that during the last session of Congress, 
when a Senator from Mississippi proposed the acknowledgment of Texian independ- 
ence, it was found, with very few exceptions, the members of that body were ready 
to take ground upon it, as upon the subject of slavery itself. 

" With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in believing that these feelings 
influenced the New England Senators, but one voting in favor of the measure ; and, 
indeed, Mr. Webster has been bold enough, in a public speech delivered recently in 
New York to many thousand citizens, to declare that the reason that influenced his 
opposition was his abhorrence to slavery in the South, and that it might, in the event 
of its recognition, become a slaveholding State. He also spoke of the efforts making 
in favor of abolition ; and that, being predicated upon and aided by the powerful 
influence of religious feeling, it would become irresistible and overwhelming. 

"This language, coming from so distinguished an individual as Mr. Webster, so 
familiar with the feelings of the North, and entertaining so high a respect for public 
sentiment in New England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be 
misunderstood." 

Observe, this is tlie Legislature of Mississippi assigning reasons why 
Texas oughi to be annexed tu this Union : 

"We sincerely hope there is enough good sense and genuine love of country among 
our fellovir-countrymen of the Northern States to secure us final justice on this subject ; 
yet we cannot consider it safe or expedient for the People of the South to entirely 
disregard the efforts of the fanatics, and the opinions of such men as Mr. Webster, 
and others who countenance such dangerous doctrines. This unholy crusade has not 
only a potent band of moral agitators in our own country, but they are encouraged 
and stimulated to action by a hypocritical fraternity of polar philanthropists across the 
Atlantic, headed by the recreant and purchased champion of Ireland's wrongs, whose 
eyes have ceased to weep over the notorious griefs of his own countrymen, that they 
may more conveniently distil the tears of briny sympathy over the fancied ills which 
appertain to a foreign land. It is true that the President, in his inaugural address, 
has taken a decided stand in favor of the rights of the South ; but this affords us a very 
precarious safeguard against the tide of fanaticism which is rapidly setting against us. 
The time is rapidly approximating when our Northern territory, which is fast popula- 
ting, will claim admission into the Union, and when those who now avew^the opinion 
openly that the crusade that has been commenced against slavery in the South is 
instigated and sustained by religious feeling, will be able to give us more serious an- 
noyance than we have heretofore experienced. 

"The Northern States have no interests of their own which require any special 



102 

safeguards for their defence, save only their domestic manufactures ; and God knows 
they have aheady received protection from Government on a most hberal scale ; under 
which encouragement they have improved and flourished beyond example. The South 
has very peculiar interests to preserve — interests already violently assailed and boldly 
threatened. 

" Your committee ai-e fully persuaded that this protection io her best interest wilt 
be afforded by the annexation of Texas ; an eq,xjipoi9e of influence mi the halls of 
Congress will be secured, which will furnish us a permanent guarantee of pro- 
tection." 

Thus much to show what are the real grounds on which the admission 
of Texas is unanimously desired by the whole Southern portion of this 
Union. This is the cuminon sentiment at the South. It is avowed. 
This thing was not done in a corner. It was dune openly. Wc do not 
charge gentlemen of the South with any concealment or duplicity in the 
matter. This policy, on the contrary, is openly avowed to the world by 
those who are so anxiously seeking to bring Texas into the Union. But 
then the question very naturally occurs to me, if these are the feelings, 
the motives, and the principles, moral and political, on which the People 
of that portion of the Union desire this annexation, what must be the 
feelings, motives, and principles, moral and political, of those portions 
of the Union against wliose interests and influence this measure is con- 
fessedly directed? Sir, they have been sufficiently disclosed in the 
resolutions adopted and sent to this body by the Legislatures of Ver- 
mont, of Rhode Island, of Massachusetts, of Ohio, of Michigan, and by 
the proceedings in the Legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania; and 
it is against the principles and the earnest wishes of these States and 
these Legislatures, expressed in resolutions adopted almost unanimously, 
that the doors of this hall have been closed ; the House has refused to 
permit even the reading of the resolutions themselves ; and the commit- 
tee to v.'hom they were referred for consideration, return them on your 
hands, declaring that they have not looked into one of them. 

It is with reference to this point alone that I have touched at all upon 
the subject of slavery. I do not now enter on the moral question ; suf- 
ficient unto the day will be the good thereof, when the question shall be 
fully opened, and shall be taken up at such a stage of the session as to 
admit of its receiving a full and fair discussion. I have referred to it 
now only to show that the intense interest felt in regard to the admission 
of Texas, in both portions of the United Stales, rests entirely on that 
pivot. The true motive of desiring it on the one hand, and of opposing 
it on the other, is to be found in its bearing on the subject of slavery. I 
say that, if the intention of the House was to calm the agitation of the 
country, and to conciliate the feelings on all sides, they ought to have 
considered the subject, and reported fully and impartially upon it. The 
committee should have reported such an argument as might have gone 
into all parts of the United States. They ought to have shown that the 
rejection of this proposal of annexation, the immediate, decided, unqual- 
ified rejection of it, is indispensable to the peace and welfare of this 
country. That would have tended, more than all other things, to pacify 
the feelings and quiet the agitation of all parts of this republic on a ques- 
tion which now so divides them. 

But I now pass to another topic. I refer now to the manner in which 
our relations with Mexico have been, now are, and will hereafter be, 
aflfected by the agitation of this question in the United States. 



, 103 

In the answer of Mr. Forsyth to the proposals of the Texian Minister 
Plenipotentiary, in declining, for the time, the proposal of annexation, 
he says : 

' ' The question of the annexation of a foreign independent State to the United 
States has never before been presented to this Government. Since the adoption of 
their Constitution, two large additions have been made to the domain originally 
claimed by the United States. In acquiring them, this Government was not actuated 
by a mere thirst for sway over a broader space. Paramount interests of many mem- 
bers of the Confederacy, and the permanent well-being of all, imperatively urged upon 
this Government the necessity of an extension of its jurisdiction over Louisiana and 
Florida. As peace, however, was our cherished policy, never to be departed from 
unless honor should be periled by adhering to it, we patiently endured, for a time, 
serious inconveniences and privations, and sought a transfer of those regions by 
negotiations and not by conquest. 

" The issue of those negotiations was a conditional cession of these countries to the 
United States. The circumstance, however, of their being colonial possessions of 
France and Spain, and therefore dependent on the Metropolitan Governments, renders 
those transactions materially different from that which would be presented by the 
question of the annexation of Texas. The latter is a State with an independent Gov- 
ernment, acknowledged as such by the United States, and claiming a territory beyond, 
though bordering on the region ceded by France in the treaty of the 30th of April, 
1803. Whether the Constitution of the United States contemplated the annexation 
of such a State, and, if so, in what manner that object is to be effected, are questions, 
in the opinion of the President, it would be inexpedient, under existing circumstances 
to agitate. 

"So long as Texas shall remain at war, while the United States are at peace with 
her adversary, the proposition of the Texian Minister Plenipotentiary necessarily 
involves the question of war with that adversary. The United States are bound to 
Mexico by a treaty of amity and commerce, which will be scrupulously observed on 
their part, so long as it can be reasonably hoped that Mexico will perform her duties 
and respect our rights under it. The United States might justly be suspected of a 
disregard of the friendly purposes of the compact, if the overture of General Hunt 
were to be even reserved for future consideration, as this would imply a disposition on 
our part to espouse the quarrel of Texas with Mexico ; a disposition wholly at variance 
with the spirit of the treaty, with the uniform policy, and the obvious welfare of the 
United States." 

Here the matter is put in the form of a question, which implies doubt 
whether a foreign independent State can, under the Constitution, he 
annexed by Congress to the United States. And he takes the express 
position that so long as Mexico and Texas remain at war, the admission 
of the latter is impossible without a violation of treaty. 

This brings us to the subject of our relations with Mexico. The 
Secretary says, these are relations of good faith ; that there are treaty 
stipulations between us and Mexico, and that we cannot consent to 
receive Texas into the Union without a violation of them. Now, I wish 
to bring the House to the consideration of that which, though I fully 
believe it to be true, I may not be allowed to prove, unless I first put 
the proposition in a contingent form. I say, then, that though we remain, 
formally and legally, at peace with Mexico, yet, if a system of deep 
duplicity worthy of Tiberius Caesar, or Ferdinand of Arragon, had been 
the policy of this and of the last Administration in regard to her, it could 
not have been exceeded by that line of conduct which actually has been 
pursued towards that Republic. I put the position that a system of the 
deepest duplicity has been pursued by the Administration ever since the 
4th of March, 1829, to this day, or at least till yesterday, when the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs prevailed on this House 



104 

to suppress llie publication of a mass of most important documents senl 
here as an accompaniment to a message from tiie President of the Unite(^ 
States; and 1 say, further, that tliat system of duplicity has had for its 
object the bleeding of a war with Mexico, in order that under the cover 
of such a war we might accomplish . the annexation of the province of 
Texas to this Union. The proofs of this are to be found in a gr.^at 
volume of documents, the greater portion of them in manuscript, received 
only yesterday, in answer to a call made four or five months ago. These 
important papers are now presented in the last days of a very long session, 
when, even if they were printed, there is not time left for the members 
of this House to possess themselves of what they contain. And now, while 
an investigation of the whole subject is called for, the chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Afi'airs gets up and proposes to suppress them. 

[Mr. Howard. I did not propose any such thing.] 

1 say he did ; and I refer to the Journal to prove it. He did propose 
to refuse the printing of the documents as a whole, but wanted the ap- 
pointment of a committee to garble them, and present to the House an 
incomplete transcript: and this is all consistent. If gentlemen will look, 
at the calendar on the Speaker's table, they will find that, as long ago 
as the 19th of February, I offered here four resolutions, as follows : 

" Resolved, That the just claims of citizens of the United States upon the Government 
of the Mexican Republic, for indemnity for injuries upon their persons or property, 
committed by officers or other persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Mexican confeder- 
ation, ought not to be sacrificed or abandoned by the Government of the United Stales. 

" Resolved, That the existing relations between these United States and the Mex- 
ican Republic cannot justify the United States, on any principle of international laWy 
in resorting to any measure of hostility against the Mexican Government or People. 

' ' Resolved, That in the present state of the relations between these United States 
and Mexico, nothing has occurred which can justify the continued suspension of ami- 
cable negotiations between them. 

" Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to resume amica- 
ble negotiations with the Government of the Mexican confederation." 

Five months ago these resolutions were offered to the House, and they 
are yet waiting to be taken up for consideration. And what did the com^ 
mittee do? Sir, they have not reported on the part of the President's 
annual message upon our relations with Mexico yet. Last week a 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Biddle] called on the chairman, 
and requested, as a matter of courtesy, to know whether it was the 
intention of the committee to report on those resolutions'? The chair- 
man (with a reserve for his dignity, and denying the right of any mem- 
ber to question him) graciously condescended to reply, that it was. The 
committee, then, intend to report. But when 1 And what discussion 
can be had within the three remaining days of this session? Yet this House 
have had those resolutions before them ever since the 19th of February*' 
Resolutions in support of the claims of citizens of the United States. 
The}' have never looked, 1 presume, into any one of the papers refer- 
red to. They report on every thing without looking into it. [A laugh.] 

Sir, this is but an incident in that general system of duplicity on this 
subject which I have denounced to the world. The system was com- 
menced pretty early. The revolution in Texas constituted one essential 
part of it. At the time when the independence of Mexico had been ac- 
knowledged by this country, negotiations were instituted between this 



105 

Govenmient and tliat of Mexico as to the boundary line between ihelwo 
Territories. Even before tiie formal acknowledgment of independence, 
a statement had been made here by the representative of another South 
American State of a proposition by Mexico to adopt and conform to the 
boundary line established by the treaty of 1819. The first Minister of 
the United States to Mexico was authorized to agree to that proposition, 
and commissioners were appointed to trace out the line, commencing at 
the mouth of the Sabine, and running across the continent to the South 
Sea. This was the line agreed upon in our treaty with Spain, to which 
Mexico had agreed to conform. But there were a certain portion of the 
population of the United States who had been desirous of including 
wiihin the line, on our side of it, the country between the Sabine and the 
Rio del Norte ; and to accommodate them (Texas then being a free 
State) the Minister of the United States was authorized to propose a 
new line, extending to the Brasses, to the Colorado, or to the Rio del 
Norte, as the disposition of Mexico might assent. 

But, from the tirst moment that suggestion was made, a strong degree 
of suspicion and jealousy sprang up on the part of Mexico, that there 
was a purpose, on the part of the United States, to obtain this portion of 
her territory against her will. They did not, indeed, meet the proposi- 
tion with an absolute denial ; but proposed the appointment of commis- 
sioners to find out what would have been the line under the treaty nego- 
tiated by Thomas Pinckney with Spain, in 1795, which line would have 
been found to be the river Mississippi. In the most friendly manner the 
Mexican Secretary of State expressed the opinion that this line should 
first be ascertained. 

[Here the morning hour expired.] 

Mr. Adams expressed regret that the hour should have elapsed at so 
interesting a point of the discussion, and said he did not wish to occupy 
much more time. 

Mr. Elmore moved to suspend the rules, and allow Mr. A. to proceed, 
and conclude his speech. 

Mr. Dromgoole inquired whether the gentleman from South Carolina 
tneant that the suspension should end with Mr. Adams's speech, so as to 
preclude the opportunity of reply 1 If such an arrangement should take 
place, it would be gross injustice. 

Mr. Elmore said he had relied on the assurance of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts that he should not occupy much more time. 

Mr. Adams protested against the idea that by the suspension he was 
to be limited as to time in concluding his remarks. 

Mr. Elmore's motion to suspend was thereupon rejected. 

Friday, July 6, 1838. 

Mr. Adams said that, at the expiration of the morning hour the day 
before, he had been discussing the conduct of this Government towards 
Mexico from the commencement of the last Administration to the pres- 
ent time ; and was laying down the position that that conduct would have 
been the very same had the object been to practise a systematic course 
of fraudulent policy towards that Government, worthy of a Tiberius. 
Caesar or Ferdinand of Arragon. in order to expose that fraud most 
fully to the country, which has a right to know and to understand \i 



106 

aright, the printing of the voluminous documents that had accompanied 
the message of ttie President on the subject of our Mexican relations, and 
which lie on the table, would be necessary. But it had been refused by 
a vote of the House.* Still Mr. A. presumed that this would not inhibit 
him from using those papers as matters of reference ; and between this 
time and the next session of Congress, (when this part of the subject, he 
hoped, would be freely and fully discussed,) he should prepare himself 
to prove the assertion he had made with regard to the conduct of the 
Gevernment towards Mexico, by the evidence which such a reference 
would afford. At present, ho should merely touch upon this part of the 
subject in a general way. 

He had stated, the day before, that, before the United States acknowl- 
edged the independence of the Mexican Republic, a proposal was made 
by them to the Government of the United States, through the agency of 
Mr. Torrens, then Charg6 d'Affaires from the Republic of Colombia, 
the independence of which had been previously recognised by Mr. Mon- 
roe, that " the limits between the two countries be fixed according to the 
3d article of the treaty of Washington, of the 22d of February, 1819, be- 
tween the United States and Spain, drawing the line and establishing 
the landmarks, by commissioners appointed by both Governments, in the 
same manner as was provided by the 4th article of the said treaty." The 
note of Mr. Torrens containing this proposal, dated the 15th of February, 
1824, is among the papers communicated to this House at the special ses- 
sion of Congress, last October, in the document No. 42, Whether any 
immediate answer was given to the note of Mr. Torrens does not appear 
in the document, and is not within ray recollection. The answer to the 
note, if any was given, may be among the voluminous mass of [Papers 
just now communicated, and lying on the table, or it may be among the 
archives of the Department of State. 

It would be recollected by members of that House that, on occount of 
impending difficulties, there had not been an American Minister to Mex- 
ico for two or three years after the acknowledgment of the independence 
of that Republic. Two attempts were made to make such an appoint- 
ment ; neither of which was successful. The first person selected to fill 
that station was General Andrew Jackson, who did not accept the ap- 
pointment. The second was Ninian Edwards, who accepted it, but was 
prevented, by circumstances within the memory of us all, from entering 
upon the discharge of its duties. A year or more elapsed, afier'the note 
of Mr. Torrens, and there was yet no Minister to Mexico. At length 
Mr. Poinsett was sent thither. Among the documents laid upon the tables 
of members of that House, there was a letter of instructions from the 
Secretary of State, dated March 26, 1825, to Mr. Poinsett, containing a 
reference to this question of the boundary line between the United States 
and Mexico. It begins with a copy of the treaty defining that line, and 

* Afterwards, that vote was reconsidered, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of Vir- 
ginia, and a committee of three were appointed, of which he was the chairman, to 
select such portions of the documents as, in their judgment, it was expedient to have 
printed ; and the report of that committee, recommending the printing of certain of 
the papers, &c., in question, was subsequently adopted by the House, and the print- 
ing ordered accordingly. — Reporter. 



107 

says that that part of the treaty remained to be executed, after the re- 
cognition of Mexican independence. And in the same letter there was 
the following paragraph : 

"Some difficulties may possibly hereafter arise between the two countries from the 
line thus agreed upon, against which it would be desirable now to guard, if practica- 
ble ; and as the Government of Mexico may be supposed not to have any disinclina- 
tion to the fixation of a new line, which would prevent those difficulties, the Presi- 
dent wishes you to sound it on that subject, and to avail yourself of a favorable dis- 
position, if you should find it, to effect that object. The line of the Sabine ap- 
proaches our great Western mart nearer than could be wished. Perhaps the Mexican 
Government may not be unwilling to establish that of the Rio Brasses de Dios, or 
the Rio Colorado, or the Snow mountains, or the Rio del Norte, in lieu of it. By 
the agreed line, portions of both the Red river and branches of the Arkansas are 
thrown on the Mexican side, and the navigation of both those rivers, as well as that 
of the Sabine, is made common to the respective inhabitants of the two countries. 
When the countries adjacent to those waters shall come to be thickly inhabited, col- 
lisions and misunderstandings may arise from the community thus established, in the 
use of their navigation, which it would be well now to prevent. If the line were so 
altered as to throw altogether on one side Red river and Arkansas, and their respective 
tributary streams, and the line on the Sabine were removed further west, all causes 
of future collision would be prevented. The Government of Mexico may have a 
motive for such an alteration of the line as is here proposed, in the fact that it would 
have the effect of placing the city of Mexico nearer the centre of its territories. If 
the line were so changed, the greater part, if not the whole, of the powerful, war- 
like, and turbulent Indian nation of the Camanches would be thrown on the side of 
the United States ; and as an equivalent for the proposed cession of territory, they 
would stipulate to restrain, as far as practicable, the Camanches from committing hos- 
tilities and depredations upon the territories and people, whether Indians, or other- 
wiee, of Mexico." 

Then followed an argument to show the expediency and propriety of 
this line, and the passage thus concludes : 

"But if you shall find that the Mexican Government is unwilling to alter the 
agreed line in the manner proposed, and that it insists upon the execution of the third 
and fourth articles of the treaty before mentioned, you are authorized to agree to the 
recognition and establishment of the line as described in the third article, and to the 
demarcation of it forthwith, as is stipulated in the fourth." 

Of course the Minister was instructed upon the supposition that the 
Government of Mexico would be willing to alter the line, to propose a 
new one, varying two degrees from that of the Sabine, established by 
the treaty with Spain. But, if she were not willing to accede to this, 
he was instructed to propose commissioners to inake a survey, with a 
view to establishing a line. This proposition, as had been stated the 
day before, was found to be exceedingly disagreeable to the Mexican 
Government. Yet, at a still later period, (1827,) a new proposition, 
still more specific and particular, to the same effect, was made by this 
Government to Mexico. In the instructions from the Department of 
State it was said : 

" The great extent and the facility which appears to have attended the procurement 
of grants from the Government of the United Mexican States, for large tracts of 
country to citizens of the United States, in the province of Texas, authorize the belief 
that but little value is placed upon the possession of the province by that Government. 
These grants seem to have been made without any sort of equivalent, judging accord- 
ing to our opinions of the value of land. They have been made to, and apparently in 
contemplation of being settled by, citizens from the United States. These emigrants 
will carry with them our principles of law, liberty, and religion ; and however much 
it may be hoped they might be disposed to amalgamate with the ancient inhabitants of 



108 

Mexico, so far as political freedom is concerned, it would be almost too much to expect 
that all collisions would be avoided on other subjects. Already some of these collisions 
have manifested themselves, and others, in the progress of time, may be anticipated 
with confidence. These collisions may insensibly enlist the sympathies and feelings 
of the two Republics, and lead to misunderstandings. " 

Then there was a further argument proposing an alteration of the line : 

' ' The boundary which we prefer is that which, beginning at the mouth of the Rio 
del Norte in the sea, shall ascend that river to the mouth of the Rio Puerco ; thence, 
ascending this river to its source, and from its source, by a line due north, to strike 
the Arkansas ; thence, following the course of the southern bank of the Arkansas, to 
its source, in .latitude 42 degrees north ; and thence, by that parallel of latitude to the 
South Sea. The boundary thus described would, according to the United States Tan- 
ner's map, published in the United States, leave Santa Fe within the limits of Mexico, 
and the whole of Red river, or Rio Roxo and the Arkansas, as far up as it is probably 
navigable, within the limits assigned to the United States. If that boundary be 
unattainable, we would, as the next most desirable, agree to that of the Colorado, 
beginning at its mouth, in the bay of Bernardo, and ascending the river to its source ; 
and thence, by a line due north, to the Arkansas ; and thence, as above traced, to the 
South Sea. This latter bounJary would probably also give us the whole of the Red 
river, would throw us somewhat further from Santa Fe, but it would strike Arkansas 
possibly at a navigable point. To obtain the first-described boundary, the President 
authorizes you to oft'er to the Government of Mexico a sum not exceeding one mil- 
lion of dollars. If you find it impracticable to procure that line, you are then autho- 
rized to offer, for the above line of the Colorado, the sum of five hundred thousand 
dollars. " 

Now, these two propositions were made when Texas was free, slavery 
having been abolished by law in that province ; and Mr. A. said thai he 
referred to theui at this time, because there had then already been grants 
of land made to citizens of the United Stales in that province, laying 
the foundation of that spirit lately and at present so manifest in this 
country, of grasping at that territory. He had said that this proposition 
of altering the boundary between this country and Me.xico was highly 
disagreeable to the latter. The Minister from this Government had been 
authorized to make a treaty of commerce as well as of limits. He sa3s: 

"I waited on the Secretary of State, by appointment, on the morning of the 12th 
instant, in order to discuss the manner of conducting the negotiations for the treaties 
of commerce and of limits between the two nations. It was agreed to treat the two 
subjects separately." * » * ♦ » 

" With respect to the treaty of limits, I suggested that, although the Government 
of the United States held itself bound to carry into effect the treaty of limits concluded 
with the King of Spain, 22d of February, 1819, still it would appear more becoming 
the independent character of this [Mexican] Government to lay aside that treaty alto- 
gether, and to endeavor to establish a boundary which would be more easily defined, 
and which might be mutually more advantageous. The Secretary expressed himself 
much gratified by such a suggestion, and proposed that the two Governments should 
forthwith appoint commissioners to make a reconnoissance of the country bordering on 
the line formerly settled with Spain, so as to obtain such information in regard to that 
portion of our respective territories as would enable us to act understandingly on the 
subject." 

There was the proposition. The Minister proposed that the commis- 
sioners should be appointed to trace the line, under the treaty of 1795, 
*' so as to enable us to act understandingly," «Stc. He continues : 

' ' I objected to this proposal the limited powers of the President of the United 
■States, and that such an appointment could not well be made until the next meeting 
of Congress. He replied that his Government would be very averse permanently to 
fix the limits between the two nation.s on the very slender information they at present 
possessed of that frontier country." 



109 

There is the first answer to the first proposition ; and it required no 
great depth to understand the feelings with which that proposition was 
regarded by Mexico. The letter proceeds : 

*' After some further conversation on the subject, it was agreed that he should 
address me a note, stating the views of this [Mexican] Government in relation to the 
proposed convention of limits. This has not yet been received." 

Well, (continued Mr. A.,) then follows the note of the 20lh of July, 
1825, in which the Mexican Secretary of State distinctly proposes that 
the two subjects of negotiation be treated separately, and without ref- 
erence to one another. 

"We might then, if your excellency thought proper, and this is the opinion 
of the President, proceed immediately to negotiate the treaty of commerce, leaving on 
one side the point of limits ; and that we might negotiate on this subject, the two 
Governments might name their commissioners, who, on examining together the country 
within a given latitude, from one sea to the other, might present exact infonnation, 
upon which the limits might be established, as is desired.'' 

To this Mr. Poinsett objects, as he had done before. Then follows 
a letter dated in March, 1826, and written by Mr. Poinsett to Mr. Clay, 
nine months afterwards : 

" By the colonization law passed in August, 1824, the General Government re- 
served twenty leagues of land from the frontiers of neighboring nations, and ten 
leagues from the sea shore, vwhich cannot be granted by the States except with the 
previous consent of the Executive. Having learnt that the President I\ad given his 
consent to a grant of land made by the State of Coahuila and Texas, of a tract 
situated within that limit, on the Red river, I called this morning at the office of the 
Secretary of State, and told Espinosa that I should not consider any grant as valid 
that was made while the negotiations were pending, in the event of that portion of 
country being included by the treaty within the limits of the United States. He ad- 
mitted that the objection was proper, and engaged to write to the State of Texas on 
the subject." 

Here Mr. Poinsett undertakes to protest against grants of land, on the 
ground that the territory in question may be annexed to the United States. 
On the 18th of March, a few months after this, he says : 

" This Government has appointed General Teran to examine the country near our 
respective frontiers, and to %btain such information as will enable them to treat upon 
that subject underslandingly." 

The Government of Mexico at this time fell so deep an interest in this 
matter of the boundary, that, without waiting for the treaty, they under- 
took, by their own authority, to trace the line. This was analogous to a 
proceeding at home, to a question now pending, and which Mr. A. wish- 
ed were settled, as indeed it must be, one way or another, before long ; 
and it was now a question whether Maine should not do as Mexico had 
in this instance done, and run her own boundary line, without reference 
to the wishes or action of Great Britain. 

At a later period, (continued Mr. Adams,) Mr. Poinsett says, under 
date of the 6th of October, 1827 : 

*'The only act passed by the Congress, since the commencement of their session, 
of any importance, is the appropriation of fifteen thousand dollars towards defraying 
the expenses of the commissioner, General Teran, appointed by this Government to 
examine and report upon the country which lies near and upon the boundary between 
the United States and Mexico, agreeably to the views of this Government, as expressed 

in their communication of the of August, 1825. The commission has not set 

out on this expedition for want of funds, Congress having appropriated' wh^t the Treas- 
ury docs not at this moment contain. In private conversations with the President and 



110 

Secretaries, I have sought to convince theto of the uselessness of this expedition until 
the treaty of limits is definitively settled. Th^ say, in reply, that the public is so anx- 
ious to have that question settled, that they think it politic so to act at present, and 
assure me of their earnest desire to adjust that delicate point as soon as possible." 

There is a subsequent document in which there is a formal acknowl- 
edgment that the Republic of Mexico possessed the right separately to 
draw tliis line. 

Ou the 19th of March, 1828, Mr. Obregon, Mini.ster Plenipotentiary 
from Mexico to the United States, informed their Secretary of State, Mr. 
Clay, that the Mexican Government had appointed General Teran to 
perform (separately) the scientific operations and surveys necessary to 
proceed in the execution of the treat}' of limits. To this notification 
Mr. Clay answered on the 24th of March ; and in that answer says : 

" The treaty to which you are understood to refer, lately concluded at Mexico, has 
not yet been received, and consequently is not yet ratified by this Government. Any 
joint measures, therefore, in relation to its execution, would.be premature until that 
ceremony is performed. But as the operations and surveys contemplated by General 
Teran's appointment are presumed to be intended for the satisfaction of the Govern- 
ment of the United States of Mexico, the President has no objection to them. I have 
therefore the pleasure of transmitting the passport requested from this office, which, 
although it may not be necessary to the security of General Teran and his suite, may 
conduce to the removal of any obstructions which, without it, he might possibly en- 
counter." 

In order to show the interest which the Government of Mexico attach- 
ed to this subject at the time, Mr. A, referred to another letter of Mr. 
Poinsett to Mr. Clay, in which the former said : 

"The Mexican Chamber of Deputies passed a resolution, when the treaty was for- 
merly before them, on which, I understand, they will insist. It is in these words, viz : 
' This Chaniber will not take into consideration the treaty which the Government has 
concluded with that of the United States of America, until an article shall be inserted 
m it recognising the validity of that which was celebrated by the cabinet of Madrid, in 
the year 1819, with the Government of Washington, respecting the limits of the ter- 
ritories of the two contracting parties.' 

" The Plenipotentiaries, in reply to all my observations on the subject, and to my 
proposals to alter the limits, insisted that Mexico had a right to consider that treaty 
binding upon the United States, as being invested with all the rights of Spain, and 
bound by all the obUgations of the mother country. They instanced the cession made 
by Spain to Great Britain of certain rights in the Bay of Honduras, which, however 
inconvenient to the Mexican Government, it had nevertheless felt itself bound to rat- 
ify ; and, in short, declared that if I did not consent to comply with the resolution of 
the Chamber of Deputies, it would be useless to discuss the other articles of the treaty, 
as it was certain that Congress would not ratify any treaty which did not contain such 
a provision." 

The treat}' of commerce laid before the Legislature of Mexico for 
their assent was not taken into consideration, on the ground that the ques- 
tion of limits was not yet settled. A protocol of conference to conclude 
a treaty of limits was then issued, in which allusion was made to the res- 
olution of the Chamber of Deputies on the subject, and which resolution 
was as follows : 

•' The Plenipotentiaries of Mexico read the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies, 
which is in the following words, viz : 

" 'This House will not take into consideration the treaty which the Government 
has concluded with the United States of America so long as it does not contain an ar- 
ticle which shall renew the existence of the treaty celebrated by the cabinet of Mad- 
rid in the year 1819, with that of Washington, Tespecting the territorial limits of the 
two contracting parties.' 



ill 

*'This resolution was passed on the 2d of April, 1827, and the treaty was accord- 
ingly sent back to the President of the United Mexican States. 

"The Plenipotentiaries observed that this resolution rendered it imperative upon 
the Executive first to settle this important question ; and, from the tenor of the note 
addressed to them by the Plenipotentiary of the United States, they presumed he could 
have no objection to regard the above-mentioned treaty as in full force and binding upon 
the United States." 

And the protocol proceeds to say : 

" The Plenipotentiary of the United States replied that, although the limits, as set- 
tled by the treaty of Washington, were liable to some objections, and might be alter- 
ed advantageously for both the contracting parties, as he had before frequently ex- 
plained, still, if the Government of Mexico insisted upon the execution of the third 
and fourth articles of that treaty, he could not object to it. 

' ' The Mexican Plenipotentiaries said that their Government had invariably acted 
upon the principle that Mexico was bound to respect the treaties of the Spanish mon- 
archy prior to the declaration of her independence ; as, for instance. Great Britain had 
acquired rights from Spain within the territory of Mexico, (in the Bay of Honduras,) 
which, however inconvenient to this Government, it was proposed not to disturb, and 
had acknowledged the existence of those rights in the recent treatj^ with that Power. 

" The Plenipotentiary of the United States replied that he did not intend to dispute 
the validity of a treaty concluded between the United States and Spain at a period 
when Mexico formed a component part of the Spanish monarchy ; and that it was ev- 
ident from former conferences, and from his note on that subject, that he had never 
controverted this principle. Any alteration of the treaty of Washington must depend 
upon the mutual consent of the present contracting parties ; but as the Executive and 
the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico appeared determined ^ insist upon carrying the 
third and fourth articles of that treaty into effect, he should no longer object to it." 

The protocol of the next conference contained an article to that effect. 

Mr. A. said he had referred to all these documents to show the extreme 
interest felt by the Government of Mexico in this question of boundary. 

He now came to a very important and particular instruction from Mr. 
Van Buren, as Secretary of State, to Mr. Poinsett, in the year 1829. 
This was a very long letter, and began thus : 

" It is the wish of the President that you should, without delay, open a negotiation 
with the Mexican Government for the purchase of so much of the province of Texas 
as is hereinafter described, or for such a part thereof as they can be induced to cede to 
us, if the same be conformable to either of the locations with which you are herewith 
furnished. The President is aware of the difficulties which may be Interposed to the 
accompUshment of the object in view; but he confidently beheves that the views of the 
matter which it will be in your power to submit, and the pecuniary consideration which 
you will be authorized to propose, will enable you to effect it. He is induced, by a 
deep conviction of the real necessity of the proposed acquisition, not only as a guard 
for our Western frontier, and the protection of New Orleans, but also to secure for- 
ever to the inhabitants of the valley of the Mississippi the undisputed and undisturbed 
possession of the navigation of that river, together with the belief that the present mo- 
ment is particularly favorable for the purpose, to request your early and unremitting 
attention to the subject. 

" The territory of which a cession is desired by the United States is all that part of 
the province of Texas which lies east of a line beginning at the Gulf of Mexico, in 
the centre of the desert or Grand Prairie, which lies west of the Rio Nueces, and is 
represented to be nearly two hundred miles in width, and to extend north to the moun- 
tains. The proposed line following the course of the centre of that desert or prairie, 
north, to the mountains, dividing the waters of the Rio Grande del Norte from those 
that run eastward to the Gulf, and until it strikes our present boundary at the 42d 
de.gi-ee of north latitude. It is known that the line above described includes the Span- 
ish settlements of La Bahia and San Antonio de Bexar, comprising all the Mexican 
inhabitants of the province, and this may furnish an objection to so extensive a cession. 
If, from this circumstance, the objcctign should be made, and you find the Mexican 



112 

Government disposed to cede any portion of the territory in question, you are aulho- 
vized to agree to any of the following lines, regarding those furthest west as preferabk- 
The second proposed line commences on the western bank of the Rio de la Baca, 
where it discharges itself into Matagorda Bay, and continuing up that river on the 
western bank thereof, to the head of its most westerly branch ; thence, due north, until 
the line shall strike the Rio Colorado ; and thence, up the Colorado river, on the west- 
ern bank thereof, to the head of its principal stream ; thence, by the most direct course 
that will intersect our line at the 42d degree of north latitude, and include the head- 
waters of the Arkansas and Red rivers. 

"The third proposal may be a line to commence at the mouth of the Rio Colorado, 
where that river empties itself jnto Matagorda Bay, and on the west bank thereof, to 
continue up that river to the head of its principal stream ; and thence by a line drawn 
from the head of its principal stream so as to intersect our present boundary line at the 
42d degree of north latitude, including also the head-waters last mentioned. 

"The last proposition may be a line to commence on the Gulf of Mexico, at the 
mouth of the Rio Brassos de Dios, and on the westerly bank of that river, to pursue 
the course of that river up to the head of its most westerly branch by the west bank 
thereof; and from the head of that branch of the river by such a course as will enable 
us to intersect our present line at the point already indicated." 

There was, in this letter, a very long arguiiienl in favor of the propo- 
sitions wliich Mr. Poinsett was instructed to make to the Mexican Gov- 
ernrwent ; and some portions of that argument were worthy the attention 
of the House. The writer says : 

" We are not left altogether to conjecture and speculation as to the results which 
are to be expected from a contiguity of settlements under such unfavorable circum- 
stances. The experience of the past affords the means of a safe estimate of the future. 
A spirit of enterprise, and not unfrequently of encroachment, has been exhibited by 
our citizens who inhabit that frontier, which has been productive of much uneasiness 
to the Mexican Government, and not without solicitude to this. Most of the grants 
that have been made in Texas are already in the hands of Americans and Europeans. 
Notwithstanding the cautious policy evinced by the Mexican Government in the desig- 
nation of an extensive border territory, within which no grants should be made or set- 
tlements permitted, the improvements of the Americans on the Texas side commence 
from what is regarded as the boundary line, and are scattered over the prohibited ter- 
ritory. Not only has the interdict been thus disregarded by the adventurous spirits 
who have been attracted thither by the unsettled state of the Mexican Government, 
but that Government itself has (it is understood) been induced, by a conviction of the 
impossibility of causing it to be respected, to make grants within its limits. The want 
of confidence and reciprocal attachment between the Government and the present in- 
habitants of Texas, (not Spanish,) from whatever cause arising, is too notorious to 
require elucidation. It has, in Ihe short space of five years, displayed itself i7i not 
less than four revolts, one of them having for its avowed object the independence of 
the country. This Government embraced the earliest opportunity to satisfy that of 
Mexico that the resistance to her lawful authority thus made was without aid or coun- 
tenance, direct or indirect, from us. The ancient and well-settled policy of the United 
States in this respect is so well known, and has been so scrupulously adhered to, as to 
leave no room for apprehension that it can be ever or long misunderstood by other 
Powers. But still, the recurrence of scenes like these, whilst they furnish the causes 
of onerous expenses and perpetual inquietude on the part of Mexico, must, in the na- 
ture of things, have a tendency to excite at least temporary suspicions of our motives, 
and produce consequent heart-burnings, hostile to those cordial and friendly relations 
which should ever be preserved between neighboring States." 

Here, by the authority of the head of the very party now proposing to 
annex this territory, it is admitted that the want of confidence and re- 
ciprocal attachment between the Government and inhabitants of Texas 
" has, in the short space of five years, displayed itself in not less than 
four revolts, one of them having for its avowed object the independence 
of the country." 



113 

In anotlier part of tliese instructions (continued Mr. Adams) occur the 
following passages : 

*' The President does not desire the proposed cession without rendering a just and 
fair equivalent for it. He therefore authorizes you to offer to the Mexican Govern- 
ment, for a cession according to the lirst-mentioned boundary, a sum not exceeding 
four millions of dollars ; and so strong are his convictions of its great value to the 
.United States, that he will not object, M"you should find it indispensably necessary, to 
go as high as five millions. You Will, of course, consult the interests of the United 
States, by obtaining the cession (if it can be obtained at all) upon terms as favorable 
and for a price as low as practicable, regarding the sum above stated only as the maxi- 
mum amount to which you are authorize(J to go. Should you find the Government 
of Mexico unwilling to part with as large a portion of their territory as would be in- 
cluded in the first-mentioned bounds, but disposed to cede a less quantity, you will, 
in such case, endeavor to obtain a cession agreeably to some one of the boundaries 
above described, urging them in the order of preference before stated, and stipulate to 
pay therefor a sum which, estimating five millions as a fair compensation for the 
largest extent proposed, would be a proportionate equivalent for that which is ceded." 

***** * * * 

'• / have already stated that the present moment is regarded by us as an auspicious 
one to secure the cession ; and will now add, that there does not appear to he any 
reasonable objection to its being embraced, on the score of delicacy, or from an ap- 
prehension that, in doing so, we would give offence to the Government of Mexico. 
Nothing would be more adverse to the feelings of the President than to give that 
Government reasmi to believe that he is capable of taking advantage of their neces- 
sities to obtain from them any portion of the Mexican territory, the cession of which 
would impair the true interests or commit the honor of that country. 

" The comparatively small value of the territory in question to Mexico; its re- 
mote and disconnected situation ; the unsettled conditio7i of her affairs; the depressed 
and languishing state of her finances ; and the still, and at this moment particu- 
larly, threatening attitude of Spain, all combine to point out and recommend to 
Mexico the policy of parting with a portion of her territory of very limited and 
contingent benefit, to supply herself with the means of defending the residue with 
the better prospect of success, and with less onerous burdens to her citizens." 

In these paragraphs (continued Mr. Adams) are proofs abundant of 
both parts of that duplicity which I have charged against the late Ad- 
ministration in regard to its Mexican policy. This letter of instructions 
artfully touciies upon a series of arguments for ti)e accomplishnoent of 
the designs of this Government, while it contains a denial of all intention 
to take advantage of those arguments for that purpose. In the first place, 
there is the admission explicitly made that this Government might take 
advantage of the circumstances alluded to to wrestl Texas from Mexico, 
and then a disavowal of all such intention. Taken together, do they not 
clearly make out a case of double-dealing on the part of this Govern- 
ment with that of Mexico? This letter was dated August, 1829. It so 
happened that, before it could reach our Minister in Mexico, that Min- 
ister had become so obnoxious to the Government of that Republic, 
chiefly on account of the earnestness with which he pressed this odious 
subject of the boundary, that that Government had sent to ours a demand 
for his immediate recall. The letter of Mr. Van Buren was dated 
August, 1829, and was despatched by a person by the name of Butler, 
who, arriving in Mexico, found that that Government had peremptorily 
demanded the recall of Mr. Poinsett. For proof of this, I will refer the 
House to the message of President Jackson at the commencement of the 
session of 1829-'30 : 

"The recent invasion of Mexico, and the effect thereby produced upon her domestic 
policy, must have a controlling influence upon the great question of South American 

8 



114 

emancipation. We liave seen the fell spirit of civil dissension rebuked, and, perhap:f 
forever, stifled in that Republic, by the love of independence." * * . 

" Deeply interested as we are in the prosperity of our sister Republics, and more, 
particularly in that of our immediate neighbor, it would be most gratifying to mo 
were I permitted to say that the treatment which we have received at her hands has 
been as universally friendly as the early and constant solicitude manifested by the 
United States for her success gave us a right to expect. But it becomes my duty 
to inform you that prejudices, long indulged by a portion of the inhabitants of Mex-» 
ico against the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United 
States, have had an unfortunate influence upon the affairs of the two countries, and 
have diminished that usefulness to his own which was justly to be expected from 
his talents and zeal. To this cause, in a great degree, is to be imputed the failtire 
of several measures equally interesting to both j)arties ; but particularly that of the 
Mexican Government to ratify a treaty negotiated and concluded in its own capital 
and under its own eye. Under these circumstances, it appeared expedient to give 
to Mr. Poinsett the option either to return or not, as, in his judgment, the interest 
of his country might require ; and instructions to that end were prepared ; but, be- 
fore they could be despatched, a communication was received fi'om the Government of 
Mexico, through its Charge d' Affaires here, requesting the recall of our Minister. 
This was promptly complied with ; and a representative, of a rank corresponding with 
that of the Mexican diplomatic agent near this Government, was appointed. Our 
conduct towards that Republic has been unifonnly of the most friendly character ; and, 
having thus removed the only alleged obstacle to harmonious intercourse, I cannot 
but hope 'that an advantageous change will occur in our affairs." 

Mr. Poinsett went liome, and Mr. Butler remained as Charge d'Affaire& 
from the United States to Mexico, and the instructions whicli he bore lo 
Mr. Poinsett were extended to him. As to the circumstances attending 
the appointment of Mr. Butler to this office, there was no document that 
he (Mr. A.) knew of that explairsed them; hut he believed that, among 
the mass of documents which had accompanied the President's message 
the other day, and which the House had laid on tlie table, and refused to 
print,* enougli would be discovered, at least, to raise the suspicion that 
this same Mr. Butler was himself deeply concerned in speculations in 
Texas lands. Mr. A. was unwilling to set on foot suspicions to the 
injury of any one, and he should at this time refrain from saying what 
he thought was evidence that Mr. Butler was interested in the lands of 
Texas, and in the revolution which followed soon after he went to 
Mexico. 

One step further, and one year later. Here we have the state of 
things as they existed in 1829. I will now (said Mr. A.) take the lib- 
erty of reading from a letter, written by Dr. Mayo, a confidential officer 
of the Government at the time, written in 1830, to the President of the 
United States, in which there was enclosed a cipher, — the cipher, 1 be- 
lieve, of the Masonic order, 

Here Mr. Boon rose, and called the orders of the day, alleging that 
the morning hour had expired. 

Mr. Howard would make an inquiry. It was now Fi'iday ; the 
House was to adjourn on Monday ; in case the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts did not finish his remarks, so as lo afford time for a reply at this 
session, could they be rejiiied to at the next session of Congress 1 

The Chair said that that would be for the House to decide at the; 
proper time. 



See note, ante, page 106, 



. 115 

Mr. Adams remarked that the time of that House was under the con- 
trol of the gentleman and his friends, and not in his own. 
And here the House proceeded to the orders of the day. 

Saturuay, July 7, 1838. 

Mr. Adams. When the hour expired yesterday, I was adducing evi- 
dence to show that the conduct 61' the Executive Administration of this 
Government toward that of M(;xico was marked by duplicity and hostili- 
ty — by hostility to the extent of a deliberate design of plunging us into a 
war with that Power, for the purpose of dismembering her territories, 
and annexing a large portion of them to this Union. This projected 
war was avowed, openly, sixteen months ago, by the Executive, and 
was countenanced and supported by a report from the Committee on 
Foreign Afi'airs, but not by this House, at that time. The same hostility 
and the same duplicity have been continued to this day. T stated that, 
in consequence of the application by this Government for the purchase 
of Texas, made through the gentleman now at the head of the Department 
of War — a gentleman of the highest respectability, but who is himself a 
citizen of one of the siaveholding States most interested in the perpetua- 
tion of the system of slavery — the Mexican Government became so dis- 
satisfied with him, then our Minister there, that it had demanded his 
recall. In the annual message of the President, at the Congress of 
1829-'30, it was stated that the recall had been made, and that a 
Charge d'Afiaires had been appointed to that legation in the place of 
the Minister thus recalled. I referred, among other things, to a very 
remarkable document, dated 25lh August, 1829, drawn u|) by a gentle- 
man, then Secretary of State, but who has since become the Chief Ma- 
gistrate of the Union, in which the proposition for the purchase of Texas 
is renewed, and urged with extraordinary earnestness and very elaborate 
argument. But I neglected to notice the fact that this letter of instruc- 
tions was prepared precisely at the time that a Spanish force from the 
island of Cuba was invading Mexico. I read from the letter a passage 
going to show that it was within the knowledge of this Government that 
Mexico was then in a distressed situation, and that it niigiit be charged 
upon us that we took advantage of that state of things to press our appli- 
cation for the purchase of a part of her territory ; but disavowing, in the 
strongest terms, every thing like such a design. I entreated members of 
the House to read that document, as containing demonstrative proof of 
the duplicity which I have charged upon that Administration. 

ft did so happen that this letter of instructions did not arrive in Mexico 
till after the Mexican Government had peremptorily demanded the re- 
call of Mr. Poinsett, and after the total failure of the Spanish invasion, 
which two events occurred at nearly the same time. The messenger 
who took out the letter was appointed Charg6 d'Afiaires, and the letter, 
being transferred to him in his new character, became the standing in- 
struction of the United States diplomatic functionaries near that Govern- 
ment. In that letter, among other arguments in favor of the cession of 
Texas, is stated the fact that large numbers of the citizens of the United 
States were rushing into that territory, obtaining grants of land, wiih 
the purpose of exciting an insurrection of the province against the Mexi- 
can Government, and that this design had been cherished for years. 



116 

This fact wns adduced, I say, in a letter bearing date tlie 25tli of Au- 
gust, 1829, and urged as one of many areunients in favor of the cession. 
Now, it is a matter of notoriety that at that lime there were large num- 
bers of American citizens, particularly from the Western States, engaged 
in that laudable occupation. I believe that you, sir, as a citizen of Ten- 
nessee, may be as well acquainted with what I am now stating as any 
other individual in this House, or, perhaps, in this country ; and I may, 
without hazard of contradiction, state, that in the State of Tennessee 
there existed great nunibers of such speculators; and, further, that they 
had great induence with the then head of the Executive Government. 
I believe that this despatch may, in a great degree, be referred to the in- 
fluence of those speculators, whether persons remaining in the United 
States and sending others out, or whether themselves going as adventu- 
rers into Texas. 

I must add that this state of things was well understood in Mexico at 
that time. That it was, is evident from the report laid before the Mexi- 
can Congress in 1829, by the then Secretary of State, an extract of 
which I will now read to the House : 

" The North Americans commence by introducing themselves into the territory 
which they covet, on pretence of commercial negotiations, or of the estabUshment of 
colonies, with or without the assent of the Government to which it belongs. These 
colonies grow, multiply, become the predominant part in the population ; and as soon 
as a support is found in this manner, they begin to set up rights which it is impossi- 
ble to sustain in a serious discussion, and to bring forward ridiculous pretensions, 
founded upon historical facts which are admitted by nobody, such as La Salle's 
Voyages, now known to be a falsehood, but which serve as a support, at this time, for 
their claim to Texas. These extravagant opinions are for the first time presented to 
the world by unknown writers ; and the labor which is employed by others in offering 
proofs and reasonings, is spent by them in repetitions and multiplied allegations, for 
the purpose of drawing the attention of their fellow-citizens, not upon the justice of 
the proposition, but upon the advantages and interests to be obtained or subverted by 
their admission. 

" Their machinations in the country they wish to acquire are then brought to light 
by the appearance of explorers, some of whom settle on the soil, alleging that their 
presence does not affect the question of the right of sovereignty or possession of the 
land. These pioneers excite by degrees movements which disturb the political state 
of the country in dispute ; and then follow discontents and dissatisfaction calculated to 
fatigue the patience of the legitimate owner, and to diminish the usefulness of the 
administration and of the exercise of authority. When things have come to this pass, 
which is precisely the prese7it state of things in Texas, the diplomatic management 
commences. The inquietude they have excited in the territory in dispute, the inter- 
ests of the colonists therein established, the insurrection of adventurers and savages 
instigated by them, and the pertinacity with which the opinion is set up as to their right 
of possession, become the subjects of notes, full of expression of justice and modera- 
tion, until, with the aid of other incidents which are never wanting in the course of 
diplomatic relations, the desired end is attained of concluding an arrangement oner- 
ous for one party, as it is advantageous to the other. 

' ' It has been said further, that when the United States of the North have succeed- 
ed in giving the predominance to the colonists introduced into the countries they had in 
view, they set up rights, and bring forward pretensions founded upon disputed his- 
torical facts, availing themselves generally, for the purpose, of some critical conjunc- 
ture to which they suppose that the attention of Government must be directed. 
This policy, which has produced good results to them, they have commenced carry- 
ing into effect with Texas. The public prints in those States, including those which 
are more immediately under the influence of their Government, are engaged in dis- 
cussing the right they imagine they have to the country as far as the Rio Bravo. 
Handbills are printed on the same subject, and thrown into general circulation, whose 



117 

object 15 to persuade and convince the People of the utihty and expediency of the 
meditated project. Some of them have said that Providence had marked out the Rio 
Bravo as the natural boundary of those States, which has induced an English writer 
to reproach them with an attempt to make Providence the author of their usurpations : 
but what is most remarkable is, that they have commenced that discussion precisely 
at the same time they saw us engaged in repelling the Spanish invasion, believing that 
our attention would, for a long time, be thereby withdrawn from other things." 

There is an extract to be compared with the letter of instructions 
from Mr. Van Buren of the 25th August, 1829, which I have referred 
to, and with the offer made at the same time to purchase the province 
of Texas, The one is a commentary upon the other ; ^nd the two, 
taken together, furnish full demonstration of the truth of the charge that 
there has been, on our part, towards the Mexican Government, a series 
of duplicity and hoslilily, accompanied by a secret design to wrest from 
her possession a portion of her territor}'. I entreat gentlemen to com- 
pare these documents ; to examine thera ; and to see the gross duplicity 
which is even avowed in one paragraph of this paper, and which, though 
less openly, pervades the whole of it. 

I shall now present to this House, and to the country, a document 
which is not of a public nature. Bui, before doing so, 1 must refer to a 
letter from Dr. Mayo, a confidential officer of the Administration, to 
President Jackson, dated the 2d of December, 1830, one year after the 
date of the instructions I have read to the House. It begins thus : 

"To Gen. Andrew .TACKSoif, President of the United States: 

" The enclosed is the scheme of a secret alphabet, in the handwriting of 

, which came into my possession in the manner hereinafter mentioned, and 

which I confide to your excellency, together with the following statement of facts, to 
be used in any way your excellency may deem proper. Written out, the alphabet 
stands thus : [Here follows an engraving explaining the cipher alphabet referred to. ] 

"Some time in the month of February last, as nearly as I can recollect, certainly 
very shortly after Gen. Samuel Houston arrived in this city, I was introduced to him 
at Brown's Hotel, where both of us had taken lodgings. Our rooms were on the 
same floor, and convenient for social intercourse ; w'hich, from the (Tcneral's courte- 
ous manners, and my own desire to be enabled to do him justice, in my own estima- 
tion, relative to his abandoning his family and abdicating the Government of Ten- 
nessee, readily became frequent and intimate. Upon what he, perhaps, deemed a 
suitable maturity of acquaintance, he spoke freely and minutely of his past history. 
He spoke of his separation from Mrs. H. with great sensibility, and deprecated the 
injurious opinion it had made upon a considerable portion of the public mind, dispar- 
aging the sanity of his intellect, or rectitude of his moral character. .Judging favor- 
ably, no doubt, of the progress of our acquaintance, and the prepossessing impression 
It had made on me in relation to the salubrity and general competency of his intelli- 
gence, with rectitude of impulses, he complained of the inadequate defence volun- 
teered in his behalf by the editor of the Richmond Enquirer, and solicited me to 
write communications for the columns of that paper, and use my friendly interest 
with the editor for their publication. I promised to make a sketch of something 
anonymous respecting my favorable impressions, and show it to him. But before I 
had time or full pliancy of mind to digest any thoughts upon the subject, our frequent 
interviews, and his confidence in my serving his ends, doubtless, induced hirn to 
avow to me more particularly the ground of his solicitude to have his character and 
mental competency elevated before the public. He descanted on the immense field 
for enterprise in the Indian settlement beyond the Mississippi, and through that, as 
a stepping-stone, in Texas; and recommended me to direct my destinies that way. 
Without making any promises or commitments, I did not discourage, at this stage, his 
inflated schemes for my advancement, as T had a curiosity, now on tip-toe, to hear his 
romantic projections, for his manner and his enthusiasm were at least entertaining. 
Accordingly he went on to develop much of a systematic enterprise, but not half what 



118 

I liave sincp learnt from another source ; perhaps berause he discovered that my in- 
terest in the subject did not keep pace with the anticipations he had formed for the pro- 
gress of his disclosures. I learnt from him these facts and speculations, viz : 

" That he was organizing an expedition against Texas ; to afford a cloak to which, 
he had assumed the Indian costume, habits, and associations, bj' settling among them, 
in the neighborhood of Texas. That notliing was more easy to accomplish than the 
conquest and possession of that extensive and fertile countiy, by the co-operation of 
the Indians in the Arkansas Territory, and recruits among the citizens of the United 
States. That, in his view, it would hardly be necessary to strike a blow to wrest 
Texas from Mexico. That it was ample for the establishment and maintenance 
of a separate and independent Government from the United States. That the ex- 
pedition would be got ready with all possible despatch ; that the demonstration 
would and must be made in about twelve months from that time. That the event of 
success opened the most unbounded prospects of wealth to those who would embark in 
it, and that it was with a view to faciliate his recruits, he wished to elevate himself 
in the public confidence by the aid of my communications to the Richmond Enquirer. 
That I should have a surgeoncy in the expedition, and recommended me in the 
mean time to remove along with him, and practise physic among the Indians in the 
territory."* 

There is much more to the same general efi'ect ; but as these docu- 
ments are all contained in a p.i-inted j)ampli!et which is accessible lo all, 
and has been some time in print, I forbear to read further. But the 
paper I am now about to read is not in print. It is a letter from the 
late President of the United States to William Fulton, Es<}. then Secre- 
tar}' of the Territory of Arkansas, and the endorsement upon it shows 
that a similar letter was addressed to the United States District Attorney 
in Florida* The paper I hold in my hand is a copy. I have seen the 
origrinal, in the handwriting of Gen. Jackson; it is now in this city, and 
can be seen by any gentleman who has a curiosity to examine it. 

" (strictly confidential.) 

" WASHiNGToiiT, December 10, 1830. 

" Deah SiH : It has been stated to me that an extensive expedition against Texas 
is organizing in the United States, with a view to the estabhshment of an independ- 
ent Government in that province, and that Gen. Houston is to lie at the head of it. 
From all the cncumstances communicated to me upon this subject, and which 
have fallen under my observation, I am induced to believe and hope (notwithstanding 
the circumstantial manner in which it is related to me) that the information I have 
received is erroneous, and it is unnecessary that I should add my sincere wish that it 
may be so. No movements have been made, nor have any facts been established, 
which would require or would justify the adoption of official proceedings against in- 
dividuals implicated ; yet so strong is the detestation of the criminal steps alluded to, 
and such are my apprehensions of the extent to which the peace and honor of the 
country might be compromitted by it, as to make me anxious to do every thing short 
of it which may ser\'e to elicit the truth, and to furnish me with the. necessary facts 
(if they e:sist) to lay the foundation of further measures, 

" It is said that enlistments have been made for the enterprise in various parts of 
the Union ; that the confederates are to repair, as iraveliers, to different points of the 
Mississippi, where they have already chartered steamboats in which to embark : that 
the point of rendezvous is to be in the Arkansas Territory, and that the co-operation 
of the Indians is looked to by those engaged in the contemplated expedition. 

"I know of no one whose situation will better enable him to watch the course of 

* [Copy of endorsement on the above by the President. — "Dr. Mayo, — on the 
contemplated invasion of Texas, — private and confidential^ — a letter to be written 
(confidential) to the Secretary of Arkansas, with a copy of confidential letter to Wm. 
Fulton, Esq., Secretary to the Territory of Florida."] 



119 

things, and keep mc traly and constantly advised of any movements which may serve 
to justify the suspicions which are entertained, than yourself, and I know I can rely 
with confidence on your fidelity and activity. To secure your exertions in that 
regard, is the object of this letter, and it is because 1 wish it to be considered rather 
as a private than an official act, that it is addressed to you instead of the Governor, 
(who is understood to be now in Kentucky.) 

" The course to be pursued to effect the object in view must of necessity be left to 
your discretion, enjoining only that the utmost secrecy be observed on jour part. It', 
in the performance of the duty required of you, any expenses are necessarily incurred 
by you, T will see they are refunded. 

" I am, respectfully, yours, 

" ANDREW JACKSON. 
" Wm. Fultokt, Esq." 

This was written in December, 1830. I adduce it as demonstrative 
proof that the President oCihe United States was then perfectly and fully 
informed of a design on the part of our citizens to produce an insurrection 
in Texas for the purpose of separating that Territory from the republic 
of Mexico, and that the President considered the enterprise as highly 
criminal, and such as called upon him to arrest its progress, and prevent 
its accomplishment. 

It will be recollected that I called some time since upon the Depart- 
ment of State to know if any copy of such a letter was on the files of that 
Department, and the reply sent to this House was, that there was no 
such document there. I infer from that fact that this letter, though 
written, never was sent. And why not sent ? I believe that it was the 
will and intention of the President, at that time, to make the interposi- 
tion contained in this letter. What inference must be drawn from the 
fact of its hever having been sent, if such, indeed, was the facti It is 
not in my power to e.xplain this whole matter. The letter, however, 
exists. 1 have seen it : and I aver that the whole letter from beginning 
to end, together with its endorsement, is in the handwriting of General 
Jackson. The original letter of Dr. Mayo to the President, on which 
this was written, I have also seen : and any member of the House who 
feels curiosity on the subject, ma}' have an opportunity of examining 
both letters. Now, how is this to be explained 1 That the letters were 
written is beyond dispute. That this is endorsed " strictly confidential," 
is equally indisputable ; and the letter itself discloses, on the part of the 
President, his knowledge of a conspiracy which he considered highly 
criminal, and of which he expressed his "detestation." Is it not demon- 
strative proof of that duplicity which pervaded every part of the course 
of the late Administration in regard to Mexico, that there does exist such 
an autograph letter of the late President, and that, so far as appears, it 
was never sent? If it was sent, the persons are living who can prove it. 
The gentleman to whom the letter was written is, I believe, now in this 
city. The Secretary of the Territory of Florida is yet living. If both 
letters were sent, the fact may be proved. And if they were, then, 
surely, it is very incumbent on those who received them to prove what 
they did in regard to this foul conspiracy. 

[Mr. Howard here asked leave to interpose. The honorable gentle- 
man from Massachusetts said he has read to the House a document stated 
by him to be a strictly confidential letter of the late President of the 
United States, and has expressed his belief that the letter never had been 
sent. Will it now be in order for me to inquire of that gentleman how 
he got possession of such a document. 



J20 

The Speaker replied, that if the gentleman from Massachusetts chose 
to yield the floor for that purpose, the question might be put, but not as 
a question of order, to be put by authority of the House.] 

Mr. Adams. I understand the Speaker to have decided that such an 
inquiry is not a question of order, but that it is competent to the gentle- 
man to introduce it with my assent. The gentleman has my assent, 
and if he does make the inquiry, I am read}' to give a full, clear, and 
explicit account how this paper came into my hands. Most certainly I 
have not produced it here without first ascertaining the strict propriety 
and even delicacy of such a step. If the gentleman thinks proper to put 
his inquiry in a written form, so that it shall go on the Journal, and that 
a vote of the House may be had upon it, I am ready to answer in a 
manner that 1 hope will be perfectly satisfactory. Sir, this letter interests 
more than that gentleman and me. It interests more than the members 
of this House. Yes, sir, more than the people of this nation. The gen- 
tleman is not mistaken in the importance which he attributes to this 
document, and which is implied in the question he has just put to the 
Chair ; and I again say to him that I am prepared to give a full and ex- 
plicit account of how it came into my possession. 

[Mr. H. did not put the question.] 

Mr. A. continued. And now to return to the present argument. I 
have produced and read this letter in order to show that in December, 
1830, the President of these United States was duly informed of the 
existence of a conspiracy for invading Texas, producing a revolution in 
that province, and ultimately separating it from the Republic of Mexico, 
of which it constituted an integral part, and that the whole design was 
conducted under the command of the individual who is now Presideni 
of Texas. 

I hope the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Howard] will have a full 
opportunity of replying to and commenting upon what I have been urging 
on the attention of this House for the last fortnight, if not at the present 
session, at least at the next ; for, sir, this subject has as yet been barely- 
opened. Tedious as my argument may have appeared to many, instead 
of amplifying it, I have, on the contrary, been obliged to abridge three 
fourths of what I desired to say, and of what ought to be said on the 
various topics touched upon. Bat I was aware that sufficient time could 
not be allowed me at the present session. I do hope, however, that we 
shall never more hear of the gag, and that, at the next session, ample 
time and opportunity will be given for every gentleman to express his 
opinions on all the topics which shall be reported to us from the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs. I have adduced these documents simply as 
proofs of the existence of both duplicity and hostility on the part of this 
Government toward Mexico, and that from the commencement of the 
last Administration. We have come down as far as the close of the 
year 1830. I have read to the House a report of the Mexican Secre- 
tary of State, made to the Mexican Legislature during the very time in 
which General Houston is said to have been engaged in that conspiracy 
to which the President's letter alludes ; and in which report the con- 
spiracy is shadowed forth in all the particularities of its progressive de- 
velopment. All this time, be it remembered, our Charge near the Mexi- 
can Government was charged in a letter of instructions to propose a 



121 

cession of Texas to the United States ; to urge that proposition with all 
his influence, and to back it by an offer of five millions of dollars. And 
at the same time he was charged with the negotiation of a treaty of com- 
merce, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the boundary line 
agreed upon in our former treaty with Spain. The House has seen that 
the Legislature of Mexico, having, in consequence of these proceedings, 
its suspicions very much roused in regard to the views and purposes of 
this Government, refused to sign the treaty of commerce unless an article 
should be introduced into it recognising the line marked out in our 
Spanish treaty as the boundary line between Mexico and the United 
States. Such an article was accordingly introduced, and the commer- 
cial treaty was concluded by Mr. Poinsett, in 1828. But, owing to those 
delays which frequently happen in matters of this description, that treaty 
was not ratified in time. Whereupon, Mr. Butler was charged in his 
instructions to reconclude the same treaty, which he did in 1831 and 
'32, and in it the same article was inserted, establishing the boundary 
line as agreed upon in 1819. 

[Here the morning hour expired, and Mr. Adams, without concluding 
his remarks, resumed his seat. 

The subject, of course, lies over until (he next session, Mr. Adams 
being entitled to the floor.] 



SUPPLEMENT. 



In the National Intelligencer of the 21st of July, 1838, there was 
published a letter to the editors from Colonel Benjamin C. Howard, 
chairman of the late Committee on Foreign Afiairs, to which are an- 
nexed the letter from himself to William S. Fulton, Esq., inquiring 
whether he had received the letter from the late President Andrew 
Jackson, of 10th December, 1830, which had been road by me in the 
House of Representatives, and Mr. Fulton's answer acknowledging that 
he had received that letter some time in the month of January, 1831, 
These last two letters Mr. Howard put into my hands, with a request 
that I would communicate them to the House, which I should have done 
had I been permitted to address the House again on that subject after 
receiving them. They are now republished, together with the letter from 
Colonel Howard to the editors of the National Intelligencer, as forming 
a natural supplement to that unfinished debate. 

To THE EdITOSS of THE NATIONAL InTELLIGENCER. 

Your paper of this mormng (July 19th) announces that you have finished Mr, 
Adams's speech, which occupied so many morning hours, as you say that "Mr. 
Adams, without concluding his remarks, resumed his seat. The subject, of course^ 
lies over until the next session, Mr. Adams being entitled to the floor." 

My purpose at present is not to complain that no member of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs had an opportunity of replying to the numerous and heavy charges 
which Mr. Adams brought against that committee, nor to state what would have been 
the substance of my defence of myself and the rest of the committee, if a few mo- 
ments could have been found, under the rules of the House, for that purpose. To 
Mr. Adams's complaints of having suffered under the operation of what he calls the 
"gag-law," when at that very time he was attacking the committee, day after day, 
without a chance being afforded to them of uttering a syllable in their own vindica- 
tion, I would reply in the language of the Emperor of Mexico, who was stretched by 
the Spanish commander upon a bed of burning coals, with one of his companions, 
whose cries and complaints were loud, and whom the Emperor rebuked by saying, 
" Do you think that I lie here upon a bed of roses V 

Passing by the many errors contained in this speech, as far as it relates to th*? 
opinions or conduct of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I only mean to request you 
to publish the two enclosed letters. I placed them in the possession of Mr. Adams, 
on the day when his speech ceased, with a request that he would read them when he 
resumed the floor. I believe he would have done so, but on Monday, the last day of 
the session, the Speaker of the House decided that it was not in order for the discusf- 
sion to continue. 

On the preceding Saturday, Mr. Adams read a confidential letter of General Jack- 
son to the Hon. Wm. S. Fulton, then Secretary of Arkansas, and dwelt much upoii^ 
his belief that, although written, it was never sent. He is reported to have said : 

" Is it not demonstrative proof of that dupUcity which pervaded every part of the 
course of the late Administration in regard to Mexico, that there does exist such aiT 
autograph letter of the late President, and that, so far as it appears, it was never sent '' 
If it was sent, the persons are living who can prove it," &c. &c. 

Having obtained from Mr, Adams the letter which he read, I encIoBcd it to Gov • 



124 

evnor Fulton, (now a member of the Senate of tlie United States,) and received the 
answer which I send to you. When I inquired upon the floor of the House how the 
letter came into the possession of Mr. Adams, I understood him to reply, that if the 
House, by a vote, would call for the information, he would cheerfully give it. But 
from that moment until the end of the session there was no opportunity of moving for 
a vote of the House, nor do I know that I would have renewed the inquiry in that 
way, if there had been a propitious moment. When you say, therefore, that ♦' Mr. 
H. did not put the question," I beg that it may be understood that I considered a 
reference to "a vote of the House" by Mr. Adams, as putting it out of my power to 
press the question further, and not from a disinclination to learn how the ' ' strictly 
confidential" letters of General Jackson, or any other man, came to be read in the 
House, and then printed. 

Respectfully yours, 

BENJ. C. HOWARD. 

House op Rephesentatives, July 7, 1838. 
Sib : The enclosed letter was read by Mr. Adams in the course of his speech this 
morning, and I understood him to say that it was not sent. 

As the inference which may be drawn from this will probably be, that General 
Jackson did not seriously entertain, or intend to act upon, the principles avowed in 
this letter, may I ask you to say whether or not you received the original, of which 
the enclosed is a copy 1 

Respectfully yours, 

BENJAMIN C. HOWARD. 
Hon. Wm. S. FuLTOif. 

Senate Chambeh, July 7, 1838. 
Sib: I have this moment received yours of this date, and for answer have the 
honor to state that the original letter, a copy of which you have submitted to my in- 
spection, was received by me some time in the month of January, 1831. The origi- 
nal letter is now with my papers at home, in Arkansas, and on my return it is my 
intention to look for it, and either send it to the State Department, or bring it with 
me on my return here next fall. From my recollection of the contents of the letter, 
[ feel satisfied that the enclosed is a true copy. 

This was a matter strictly confidential, and all my proceedings under it were secret. 
Under my instructions I diligently made the inquiries required, and communicated 
the result to the President. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. S. FULTON. 
Hon. Ben. C. Howabd. 

The notoriety with which the conspiracy for the dismemberment of the 
Mexican Republic was pursued, from its incipient stage to its final consum- 
mation, not only in the Territory of Arkansas, but in all the Southwestern 
States, and nowhere with more indecent publicity than in the Stateof Ten- 
nessee, and at Nashville, by the most devoted partisans of General Jack- 
son ; the sluggish indifference with which the complaints of the Mexican 
Government upon this subject were treated by his Administration ; the 
voracious appetite for Texas betrayed by the negotiation simultaneously 
pressed upon the extreme need of Mexico for the acquisition of that 
province by purchase ; and the mystery of withholding from Congress 
all knowledge of this negotiation, while it was known to all the world 
besides, had raised strong and well-founded suspicions of the sincerity 
of the political intercourse between the late Administration and the 
Government of Mexico. Those suspicions had even been made public 
as early as the year 1829 by the report of the Mexican Secretary of 
State to the Legislature, precisely cotemporaneous with the instructions 
from Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Poinsett to take advantage of the distressed 



125 

and invaded condition of Mexico to offer five millions of dollars for 
Texas. At a later period, when a grave and solenm complaint of the 
unfriendly and equivocal conduct of the North American Administration 
towards Mexico, had been addressed directly from the Mexican to our 
own Secretary of State ; when a new question of disputed boundary 
had been suddenly started in vague and indefinite language, by a note 
of Mr. Anthony Butler to the Mexican Government ; when a solemn 
diplomatic mission of the highest order sent from Mexico to Washington 
to complain of these ambiguous givings out, and these hostile practices, 
had been met with smooth words and an inadvertent disclosure to Con- 
gress, and thereby to the Mexican Envoy, of the authority given to 
General Gaines to invade the Mexican territory, at the very moment 
of her sharpest contest with the Texian insurrection, it was impossible 
for an attentive observer not to perceive the duplicity which, for the 
first time since the existence of the United States, had crawled into their 
councils, and coiled herself in the seat of their highest power. This 
perversion of moral principle, this debasement of national morals, at 
the summit of the organized authority of the Union, had forced itself 
upon my notice by its internal evidence before the orignal letter from 
the late President to the Secretary of the Territory of Arkansas had 
been exhibited to my inspection, or the copy of it furnished me, with 
permission to make such use of it as I should think proper. 

Mr. Fulton says that this was a matter strictly confidential, and that 
all his proceedings under it were secret. 

Strictly confidential! yes ! so confidential that it was reserved from the 
knowledge of the Governor of the Territory, upon allegations not con- 
formable to the fact. The Governor was not then in Kentucky, but at 
his post in Arkansas; and although the letter was not official, but confi- 
dential, it was to him that, in the course of a straight-forward and hon- 
est policy, the instructions should have been addressed, and not to the 
Secretar}'. 

All Mr. Fulton's proceedings under the instructions were secret ! yes ! 
so secret that he discovered nothing, of which the President could or 
would avail himself, to counteract or defeat the conspiracy against the 
integrity of the neighboring Republic. He " diligently made the inquiries 
required, and communicated the result to the President." What that re- 
sult was it might be edifying to know, but the event has shown that the 
conspirators had nothing to fear from it. Perhaps there may have been 
some secret sympathy between the inquiries of Mr. Fulton, and a pub- 
lication about that time in the Arkansas Gazette, of which the following 
is one paragraph : 

" Colonel Butler, the Charge d'Affaires of the United States to Mex- 
"ico, was specially authorized by the President to treat with that Gov- 
"ernnient for the purchase of Texas. The present predominant party 
"are decidedly opposed to the ceding any portion of its territory. No 
" hope need therefore be entertained of our acquiring Texas until some 
"other party more friendly to the United States than the present shall 
" predominate in Mexico, and perhaps not until the people of Texas shall 
*'■ throw off the yoke of allegiance to that Government, which they will 
"do, no doubt, so soon as they shall have a reasonable ^pretext for doing 
"so." 



12G 

From the answer of the Department of State to the call of the House 
of Representatives of the 5th of January, 1838, for a copy of this let- 
ter from the late President to Mr. Fulton, that no such letter was found 
on the files of the Department — from the fact that the letter itself, 
thougii purporting to be a copy, was an original, in the handwriting of 
the President, and signed with his name — from the notorious fact that 
the Texian conspiracy had been aided and supported, from the Terri- 
tory of Arkansas, as openly as in Tennessee, without interruption or 
rebuke either from the Territorial or the Federal Government, and espe- 
cially from the extraordinary countenance given by the President eighteen 
months afterwards to General Houston at Washington, while he was as- 
saulting and maiming, in the darkness of night, in a street of that city, a 
member of the House of Representatives of the United States — I could 
not believe that this letter to Mr. Fulton had ever been sent, and having 
some experience of the frailty of the writer's memory upon subjects re- 
lating to Texas, I was not without expectation that he would, upon suit- 
able inquiry, not recollect that he had ever written such a letter; an 
easy consequence from which would have been another charge against 
rae in the Globe and Richmond I^nquirer of fraud and forger}', as fair 
and as true as that on the conference between General Jackson and 
me, at the conclusion of the Florida treaty, or as that of the memorable 
substitution of the semicolon for the comma. 

The acknowledgment of Mr. Fulton that he did receive the letter 
shortly after it was written, and that lie complied with its instructions, 
by secret measures, the result of which he communicated to the Presi- 
dent, removes all possible question of the authenticity of the letter — as 
the letter itself removes all possible question of the late President's full 
knowledge of the conspiracy, with General Samuel Houston at its head, 
for the dismemberment of the Mexican Republic, as early as December, 
18-30. It removes all doubt, also, of the light in which he professed to 
consider it — as an atrocious conspiracy against the peace and integrity 
of a neighboring Republic, which he, as the Chief Magistrate of this 
Union, was bound in duty to detect, to expose, and to suppress, by all 
the lawful and official means in his power. With this knowledge, and 
with these sentiments, how is the history of his subsequent intercourse 
with Mexico, with Texas, and with General Samuel Houston, to be rec- 
onciled ? The perpetu-ril teasing of the Government of Mexico for 
cessions of territory, increasing in amount in proportion as the proposals 
were repelled with disgust ; tiie constant employment of agents, civil 
and military, for all official intercourse with Mexico and Texas, citizens 
of States most intensely bent upon the acquisition of Texas, such as 
Anthony Butler, Powhatan Ellis, and General Gaines ; the uninter- 
rupted intimacy with General Houston, from the egg to the apple of the 
Texian revolt; the promise to Hutcliins G. Burton, of the Government 
of Texas; the wanton, unprovoked, and unconstitutional discretionary 
power given to General Gaines to invade the Mexican territory ; the 
apparent concert between that officer, in the execution of this authority, 
with the Texian Commanding General Houston ; the cold indiflerence 
to every complaint on the part of Mexico, against all the violations of 
our obligations of amity and of neutrality towards her; the disingenuous 
evasion of a direct answer by the wooden-nutmeg distinction that a di- 



127 

rection not to go beyond Nacogdoches was not equivalent to an authority 
to go as far as Nacogdociies ; the contemptuous treatment of all the 
complaints of the Mexican Minister, Gorostiza, and the preposterous im- 
portance attempted to be given to his printing a pamphlet in the Spanish 
language, exposing the bad faith of this Government in their treatment 
of his mission, and circulating a tew copies of it before his departure 
from this country. In all these things there is a mutual coincidence and 
coherence which makes them perpetual commentaries upon each other. 

But the crowning incident of all is the thundering war message of the 
late President of the United States to Congress, of the 7th of February, 
1837, with the assenting reports upon it, at the very heel of the session, 
by the committees of both Houses of Congress; and, last of all, the 
echo of the martial trumpet in the message of the present President at 
the commencement of the late session. In this last message was the 
strange and unwarranted assertion, that from the proceedings of Con- 
gress, on the recommendation of his predecessor in the message of 7th 
of February, it appeared that the opinion of both branches of the Le- 
gislature coincided with that of the Executive — that any mode of re- 
dress known to the law of nations might justifiahly he used. 

No such opinion had been manifested b}'^ the' House of Representa- 
tives. The blast of war had indeed reverberated from the complacent 
report of their Committee on Foreign Aflairs, but that report was never 
taken up for consideration in the House, nor was the resolution with 
which it closed adopted by the House. 

An appropriation was, indeed, at five o'clock in the morning of one 
of the last days of the session, at tlie motion of the chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Afl'airs, foisted into the general civil and diplo- 
matic appropriation bills '* for an outfit and salary for an Envoy Extra- 
" ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico, whenever, in the opin- 
" ion of the Executive, circumstances will permit a renewal of diplomatic 
" intercourse honorably with that Power, eighteen thousand dollars." 

And that same chairman of the Committee on Foreign Aflairs was, 
at the late session of Congress, reduced to the necessity of citing; this 
appropriation, thus obtruded by himself upon the sleeping vi<ril of the 
House in the last agonies of an expiring Congress, as warranting the as- 
sertion of the present President, that the two Houses of Congress had 
concurred in opinion with his predecessor, that on the 7th February, 
1837, a declaration of war against Mexico by the United Stales would 
have heen justifiable. 

An appropriation for a Minister of Peace, is, to be sure, iTiarvellous 
evidence of the opinion that a resort to war would be justifiable ! But, 
was there no other evidence of this coincidence between the Executive 
and the House of Representatives, with regard to the question of peace 
and war between the United States and Mexico? Oh ! yes, tiie report 
of the same Committee on Foreign Afl'airs recommended a last solemn 
appeal to the justice of Mexico, by a diplomatic mission of the highest 
rank, an(J the appropriation for such a mission was accordingly made. 

And on that same night, the nomination of the Minister was sent to 
the Senate, and confirmed by the advice and consent of that body. 

And who was this Minister of Peace, to be sent with the last droopins 
twig of olive, to be replanted and revivified in the genial soil of Mexico? 



128 

It was no other than Powhatan Ellis, of Mississippi, famishing for Tex- 
•■58, and just returned in anger and resentment from an abortive and ab- 
ruptly terminated mission to the same Government, in the inferior ca- 
pacity of Charge d'Afi'aires. His very name must have tasted like worm- 
wood to the Mexican palate; and his name alone seems to have been 
used for the single purpose of giving a relish to these last resources of 
pacific and conciliatory councils. His appointment seemed at least to 
harmonize with the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
for it was to a mission of the highest rank in our diplpniatic dictionary. 
But though appointed, he was not permitted to proceed upon his em- 
bassy. He was kept at home, and in his stead was despatched a courier 
of the Department of State, with a budget of grievances, good and bad, 
K\ew and old, stuffed with wrongs, as full as Falstaff's buck basket with 
foul linen, to be turned over under the nose of the Mexican Secretary of 
State, with an allowance of one week to examine, search out, and an- 
swer concerning them all. *' 

It is impossible to speak of the conduct of our Government towards 
Mexico, with the gravity which the great principles and vital national in- 
terests involved in it would require. There are large and serious causes 
of complaint, and just claims of indemnity by citizens of the United States 
against that Government, abandoned and sacrificed by our own, upon 
the most frivolous pretences of offended dignity, and repeated ruptures 
of negotiation without rhyme or reason. From the day of the battle of 
San Jacinto, every movement of the Administration of this Union appears 
to have been made for the express purpose of breaking off negotiation 
and precipitating a war, or of frightening Mexico by menaces into the ces- 
sion of not only Texas, but the whole course of the Rio del Norte, and 
five degrees of latitude across the continent to the South Sea. The in- 
struction of 21st July, 1836, from the Secretary of State to Mr. Ellis, 
almost immediately after the battle, was evidently premeditated to pro- 
duce a rupture, and was but too faithfully carried into execution. His 
(Ellis's) letter of 20th October, 1836, to Mr. Monasterio, was the pre- 
monitory symptom ; and no true-hearted citizen of this Union can read 
it, and the answer to it on the next day by Mr. Monasterio, without blush- 
ing for his country. This was the initiatory step, followed up b}^ Mr. 
Ellis till he demanded his passports and came home. And instantly after 
his return, came the war message of 7th February, 1837. In the mean 
time, the Mexican Charge d'Affaires at Washington (Castillo) had, of 
course, and necessarily, been recalled by his Government, in conse- 
quence of the hostile departure of Mr. Ellis. The Mexican Envoy Ex- 
traordinary (Gorostiza) had been driven away by the cold and insulting 
refusal of satisfaction, or even of plausible reasons for the invasion of the 
Mexican territory by General Gaines. A courier of the Department of 
State, was afterwards sent to draw the circle of Popilius round President 
Bustamente ; and no sooner had another Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary from Mexico set his foot in W^ashington, than he 
was insulted off to New Orleans, by a paragraph in the annusfl message 
of the President of the United States to Congress, spurring that body to 
war, and telling them that negotiation was exhausted, and that thty must 
provide self-redressing measures for the rights of their fellow-citizens, 
\v\\\c\\ he, the Executive Administration, was no longer able to maintain. 



129 

But the duplicity, which I have charged upon the late and present 
Administrations of our Government, in the conduct of our national inter- 
course with Mexico and Texas, has not only been signalized by its bear- 
ing upon those foreign States, but it has been practised with equal assi- 
duity upon the People of this Union themselves. It was practised by 
the legerdemain trickery, which smuggled through both Houses of Con- 
gress, against the repeatedly declared sentiments of a large majority of 
the House of Representatives, in the form of a contingent appropriation 
for a Minister, the recognition of the Republic of Texas. It has been 
practised by the long-protracted suppression of all debate in both Houses, 
most especially in the House of Representatives, concerning our relations 
with Mexico, and above all with regard to the annexation of Texas to 
this Union. The systematic smothering of all petitions against this meas- 
ure, extended to the resolutions of seven State Legislatures, could have 
no other intention than to disarm the resistance against it which was 
manifesting itself throughout all the slaveless States of the Union. It 
was distinctly seen that if a full, free, and unshackled discussion of the 
question in the House of Representatives should be permitted, its issue 
would show an overwhelming majority against the measure at this time. 

In no stronger light was this double-dealing ever disclosed than in the 
treatment of the petitions, memorials, and legislative resolutions, relating 
to the annexation, referred by the House to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, and never looked into by them. The chairman of the commit- 
tee actually charged the House with inadvertence in referring to the 
committee the petition from Lubec. He maintained that the subse- 
quent reference of all the State resolutions, and all the* petitions, had 
been contrary to the declared opinions of a large majority of the House, 
and he lamented that the motion to lay on the table, or the motion for 
the previous question upon the report of the committee, did not prevail. 
He represented the answer of the Secretary of State to the proposals of 
Mr. Memucan Hunt, as a prompt, positive, and irrevocable refusal; yet, 
what were the objections alleged by the Secretary against the acceptance 
of the offer? A war with Mexico ; and a douht ]\\si hinted of the con- 
stitutional j9oz^;er of Congress. But two Presidents of the United States 
had, for the last eighteen months, been goading Congress into a war with 
Mexico, and the chairman of tiie committee himself declared that he 
thought, with the precedents of Louisiana and Florida, there was no 
room for the constitutional doubt; he, too, had been among the most 
eager and inveterate stimulants to a Mexican war, and if it was true, as 
two Presidents had assured Congress, and as the chairman himself had 
responded in choral unison to the assertion, that a declaration of war by 
the United States against Mexico would have been justifiable in Febru- 
ary, 1837, what objection could that leave to the acceptance of the 
proposal from Texas in September of the same year? Nothing but the 
constitutional doubt, and of that the chairman of the committee had dis- 
posed by declaring, with great equanimity, that in his opinion there was 
nothing in it. 

In his publication of the 21st of July, (Colonel Howard's,) replying to 
my indignant remonstrances against the thrice-repeated gag, and com- 
plaining that he and his colleagues of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
had not enjoyed the opportunity of refuting on the floor of the House 



130 

the " many errors" of my speech, assimilates, with extreme felicity of il- 
lustration, liis unhappy condition to that of the Mexican Emperor Guati- 
mozin, stretched with one of his favorite courtiers on the rack of burn- 
ing coals, by the ruthless Spaniard, to extort the disclosure of his treas- 
ure, and responding to the shrieking supplications of his fellow-sud'erer 
by the question, " and am I on a hed of roses T' — and truly I do believe 
that he is not. But if my lamentations under the torture of the strangu- 
lated freedom of speech, in the common assembly where he and I, with 
others, our peers, represent the whole North American People, call for 
relief and deliverance upon him, his answer that he is sufiering equal 
torture himself, difi'ers somewhat in its application from that of the Mexi- 
can Sovereign. It was not by his tyranny and cruelty that his i'avorite and 
himself were stretched at once on the beds of burning coals; they were 
both victims of one and the same ruflian conqueror. If Ac could have 
rescued his friend and dependant froni the flames, there would have been 
no cause for his exclamation ; which was indeed but an emphatic decla- 
ration that he could not. To my liege lord, therefore, the Guatimozin 
of the late Committee on Foreign Affairs, I reply, that smarting as he 
now does upon the burning coals, of a casual and momentary interdict 
upon his right and privilege of speech in the Representative Hall of the 
Union, I trust he will never more, as principal or as accessary, stuff the 
gag into tire mouths of his fellow-members of the House, or his own; that 
he nil! vote for no more resolutions to strangle the right of the People to 
petition, and the freedom of debate in the House ; and that, notwithstand- 
ing his antipathy to female anti-Texas and anti-slavery petitioners, he 
will follow the example of a woman and Queen of ancient days, who by 
her own sufferings had learnt to relieve the sufferings of others. 

"Non ignara mali, miseria succurrere disco." 

As for myself, I can assure him that neither he, nor his colleagues of the 
committee, nor the members from South Carolina, one and all, burning 
with thirst for the blessing of Texas and reinstituted slavery, regretted 
more than myself that they had not time and opportunity, to the utmost 
extent of their wishes, to answer me, and refute and expose as far as 
they were able the " many errors" of my speech. I entertain, however, 
an earnest wish and fervent hope that such time and opportunity will be 
amply afforded to them all at the next session of Congress, and that nei- 
ther then, nor at any other lime, will the law of slavery be ever again 
repeated in the assembly of the People of this Union in the shape of the 
tranquillizing gag of Pincknoy and Patton. 

At that session too I indulge the hope of an opportunity to complete 
the demonstration that there is not, and never has been, a moment in the 
relations between these United States and Mexico, when a resort on oui 
part to war, or to any hostile act against that nation, would be, or have 
been, justifiable in the sight of God or man ; and if, in the course of that 
demonstration, it shall again become my painful duty to show that whatever 
may have been the wrongs of Mexico towards individual citizens of the 
United States, (and far be it from me to justify or palliate them,) the 
balance of wrong, great and grievous wrong, is against our own Govern- 
ment, and that Mexico, with regard to the United States, is far more sin- 
ned against than sinning. If, too, in that discussion, a paramount obli- 



131 

gallon of duty to my country shall compel me to scan with scrutinizing 
eyes, not only the omissions, biu the acts of the Conimitiees on Foreign 
AtTairsofthe House of Representatives down to their lingering report 
on our relations with Mexico, presented almost at the last hour of the 
late session of Congress, let the chairman of those committees not fear 
that I intend to stretch him again on the burning bed of Guatimozin. My 
intent, my sole intent, is, by the power of truth, of justice, and of ripening 
public opinion, to bring back him and the Administration to which he 
adheres, to the path of honor, of honesty, and of peace. To the path 
of Washington, and of Madison ; for departing from that path in the ignis 
fatuus chase of Texas and redintegrated slavery, I have arraigned them 
before the tribunals of the civilized world, and of posterity. They are 
upon their defence ; and it is too late to bid them God speed for a good 
deliverance. They must retrace their steps; they have broken olfall 
diplomatic negotiation with Mexico, and they have negotiated still. They 
have recalled without suflicient cause all their diplomatic functionaries at 
Mexico, and they have spurned from them the Mexican Ambassadors of 
Peace at Washington. They have accepted a proposal of arbitration for 
the settlement of the disputes between the two nations, and yet the Pres- 
ident has refused to withdraw his war-whoop instigations to Congress ; 
he may take my word for it, that they will be of no avail. The People 
of this Union will not go to war with Mexico on the false pretence of 
petty spoliations, and the real impulse of a craving for Texas, and the 
Paradise restored of slavery. If the lion roar of Jackson could not 
rouse tliem to battle for an unrighteous cause, the sucking-dove roar of 
his successor will scarcely serve even to frighten the ladies. War then 
is out of the question ; negotiation must be renewed, fornially — fully re- 
newed ; and it must be by diplomatic agents having neither personal in- 
terests of speculation in Texian lands, nor nullification sympathies with 
Texian slavery. Such functionaries may indeed be despatched on the 
restoration of the ordinary diplomatic intercourse between the two na- 
tions ; but under their ministration no claimant will ever obtain the res- 
toration of his property, or indemnity for its loss. 

If the Executive Administration wish at once for peace with Mexico, 
and for satisfaction to the just claims of their injured fellow-citizens, 
they must cast their lust for Texas to the winds, and demand and give 
satisfaction and redress in the spirit of peace. 



■C .V\'. 



•»♦.. 



